1 Timothy 6:17-19, “Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be high-minded or to set their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things for enjoyment: 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.”

Part I

Wealth Is Different

That’s not what this is

What is fundraising? Ask a normal person, and they’ll probably say,

“Fundraising? That’s asking people to give away money.”

But that’s not what this passage describes. Consider the differences.

This passage is not just about money. It’s about wealth. Money and wealth are different. Wealth can be held as money, but it rarely is. Wealth is held as appreciated assets. Money is usually a form of income, not wealth. Income is not wealth.

This passage is not about just giving money. It’s about enjoying wealth. How? By putting it to work. By using it to do good. By using it to be rich in beautiful, good works. By being a fellowship-community sharer.

This passage is not about giving money away. It’s about sharing wealth together. Giving and sharing are different. Sharing is giving “with” or “among” a community. This passage describes wealth sharing. It’s sharing with a mutually reciprocal fellowship community.

This passage is not about just giving up wealth. It’s about accumulating more kinds of wealth. It’s about becoming wealthy in even more ways. It’s about becoming rich in beautiful, inspirational, visible good works. It’s about storing up a treasure. It’s a treasure for the donors. It’s a treasure for their future.

This passage is not about just “asking” for money. It’s about coming alongside to deliver an authorized message about wealth. It’s instructing about wealth. It’s advising about lifetime wealth management.

This ministry is not just “asking people to give away money.” It’s not about asking; it’s about instructing and advising. It’s not about giving away; it’s about sharing together. It’s not about money; it’s about wealth.

Wealth is not income

Wealth permeates this passage. This is a ministry to wealth holders. It’s a ministry about wealth management. It’s about burying wealth, enjoying wealth, putting wealth to work, and diversifying wealth. It’s a ministry about wealth. Understanding this ministry starts by understanding a little bit about wealth.

At a conference once, I was talking with a fundraiser about my upcoming session. I would be talking about the importance of shifting donors from gifts of income to gifts of wealth. She looked puzzled. She hesitated. Finally, she asked,

“Aren’t those the same thing?”

Her confusion is common. So, before we go any further, let’s review the basics.

Wealth and income are different. A paycheck is income. An accumulated pile of valuable assets is wealth.

A person can have a very high income and no wealth. Celebrities and famous athletes often have high incomes. And they often go broke.117 No matter how much a person’s income is, they can always spend more.

A high-income story

In law school, I worked as a summer associate for a large corporate law firm. The firm took up the top floors of the newest downtown high rise. I probably wasn’t impressing anyone at the firm driving my 10-year-old Ford Escort station wagon. But, hey, that’s the life of a student who wants to graduate without debt!

One day at lunch, I mentioned to another law student, “It’s weird. Some of these guys make a lot. But many still live from paycheck to paycheck.”

He nodded.

I said, “But I guess at some point that goes away. If you were making a million dollars a year, that wouldn’t be a problem!”

And then my friend said something interesting. He said, “That’s not true.”

I looked a little skeptical.

He explained, “Last summer, I clerked in Manhattan.” (He was going to Harvard Law School and had worked in a top New York law firm.) He went on, “Several partners made a million a year. And they were just getting by – trying to make it to the next paycheck.” (This was 1992, so triple that paycheck for today’s dollars.)

“No way,” I said. “There is no way you can be making a million dollars a year and be just getting by.”

This sounded like complete nonsense. Understand, my father was a firefighter. My mother was a librarian and English teacher. There were no million-dollar paychecks in our house!

“Think about it,” he said. “You make a million. So, you’re paying the top federal tax rate. You’re also paying the top New York state tax rate – one of the highest in the country. And you’re working in New York City, which adds another tax.

“Put it all together, and that’s 55% in taxes. So, your $1 million just became $450K. You own a house where the other partners live. That’s at least $3 million. Your payments are $300K. So, now you’re down to 150K, and you don’t even have a car, food, or clothes. And your family? Hey, they know you make a million a year. How do you think they’re going to spend?”

I started doing the math.

He continued, “I know guys there making a million a year who hate their jobs. They come in every day wishing they could do something else. But they need the paycheck. They’re just trying to make it through the month. Hopefully, they get to retire one day – but that’s about it.”

What’s the point? Having a high income is not the same as having an abundance. Having a high income is different from having wealth. Wealth is not income.

A low-income story

A person can have a very high income and no wealth. The reverse is also true. A person can have very high wealth with little income. This is actually common.

Consider the wealthy entrepreneur. She owns a business. It’s profitable. But whenever she takes the profit out as income, it’s taxed. Twice. So, instead, she reinvests profits inside the company. It helps the company grow even more. This makes her even wealthier. But the profit creates no income for her.

Or consider the wealthy farmer. He might make a profit from crops or livestock. But then he invests it back in equipment and improvements. His property increases in value. But that’s not income until he sells it. His wealth increases, but his net income stays low.

Or consider the wealthy retiree. To live somewhere nice, other people must earn income. They have to pay a mortgage or rent. Not him. He paid off his mortgage years ago. He lives rent-free and mortgage-free because of his housing wealth. He gets the same housing, but without reporting any income.

He may also have financial investments earning income. But those are in retirement accounts. They don’t count as income until he takes the money out. He has high wealth and low income.

This is not just a matter of stories. It’s also a matter of statistics. Wealthy philanthropists usually can’t use charitable tax deductions. Why not? Because they don’t report enough income. Giving even a modest share of wealth far exceeds their income. David Joulfaian from the US Department of the Treasury reports,

“75 percent of the contributions by the very rich are never deducted.”118

Wealth is assets not money

People often use wealth and money as synonyms. But they’re not the same. Money can be a form of wealth. But it rarely is. Wealth is not held as money. It’s not held in cash, checking accounts, money market accounts, and the like.

In the US, less than 3% of household financial wealth is held in these forms.119 Including all wealth, such as real estate, makes it an even smaller share. Wealth is held in other forms. It’s held as business interests, securities, real estate, bonds, life insurance, and retirement accounts.

Wealth rarely comes directly from a paycheck. Instead, wealth comes from holding assets that go up in value. That value might go up through personal effort. This is what business owners do. Or it might come from accepting risk and buying the right asset. This is what investors do. Borrowing to buy even more of the appreciating asset increases potential results.

Bill Gates started a software company. He then used personal effort to grow it.120 Warren Buffet invented a new way to borrow money to buy stocks.121 Then, he picked the right stocks.

Wealth comes from holding assets that go up in value. This is also true for middle-class people. People borrow money to buy an appreciating asset. They use a mortgage to buy a house. Often, they apply personal effort to maintain and increase the value of that asset. Most middle-class wealth is held in that asset. It’s held as housing.

Whether it’s Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or your neighbor, the reality is the same. Wealth is not money. Wealth is not held as money. Wealth is held as noncash assets.

This matters because this ministry is about wealth and wealth sharing. Wealth is different. Wealth is different from money. Wealth is different from income. This ministry is not about asking for money. It’s not about asking for income. Those things are fine, but they’re not this ministry.

Part II

Wealth Sharing Is Different

Wealth sharing addresses a different spiritual issue

Paul outlines a ministry to the rich. This is a ministry to a specific people group. They have specific tendencies. They face specific problems. They have specific needs.

The stewardship issue facing wealth holders is different. They are the accumulators. They like to hold wealth. That’s why they became, or stayed, wealthy in the first place. That’s why they didn’t spend it.

We don’t need to counsel them about not bingeing with their wealth. That’s not their temptation. They aren’t tempted to become the bingeing prodigal son who

“squandered his estate in wild living.” (Luke 15:13b).

They aren’t tempted to become the bingeing bad steward who

“begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards,” (Matthew 24:48b ESV).

Their temptation is different. It’s not to be the bingeing bad steward. Their temptation is to be the burying bad steward.

God may richly provide them with wealth. Maybe it’s a huge chunk of gold. Let’s say 125 lbs., or 59 kg, of it. In ancient measurements, this is called a “talent.” It’s worth about $3-4 million today. That’s a wonderful blessing! But it can lead to a tragedy.

The tragedy comes from what happens next. They’re afraid. So, they take that chunk of gold and just bury it in the ground. They don’t do anything with it. In the Parable of the Talents, the burying bad steward explained,

“And I was afraid, so I went away and hid your talent in the ground.” (Matthew 25:25a).

Or maybe God gives them money. But they’re afraid. So, they take that money and hide it away in a handkerchief. In the Parable of the Minas, the burying bad steward explained,

“here is your mina, which I kept tucked away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid” (Luke 19:20b-21a).

What motivates these burying bad stewards? Why would they do this? When people bury what they never use, it’s always for the same reason. They do so because,

“I was afraid.” (Matthew 25:25b; Luke 19:21b).

They don’t put their trust in God. They put their trust in hidden wealth. (1 Timothy 6:17).122

This is a serious spiritual issue. In Jesus’s teaching, it has seriously bad consequences. The burying servant is called “worthless.” (Luke 19:22; Matthew 25:26). He is called “evil,” “wicked,” and “lazy.” (Matthew 25:26).123 Everything he has is taken from him. (Luke 19:24). He is thrown

“into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 25:30).

This is a serious spiritual tragedy. Spiritual outcomes don’t get more tragic than this.

Income sharing won’t help

So, how can we address this important spiritual issue? Suppose a person’s heart is attached to their buried wealth. They’ve been richly blessed by God. Their response is to bury it. Their plan is to die with it. That’s their heart issue.

Now suppose we convince them to give 10% of their income. That’s wonderful. And how does that affect their buried wealth? It doesn’t. It doesn’t touch the buried wealth.

Suppose we do even more. We convince them to give 20% of their income. Or, dare I say it, even 50% of their income! That too is wonderful. And how does that affect their buried wealth? It doesn’t. Income sharing doesn’t touch the buried wealth. At most, it merely slows the rate of adding even more to their buried wealth.

Income sharing doesn’t help. It also doesn’t address the heart issue. The heart issue is about wealth – not income. Jesus said,

“For where your treasure [thēsauros] is, there your heart will be also.” (Luke 12:34)

He wasn’t talking about income. He was talking about wealth. Thēsauros references a “storehouse.” It’s

“the place in which goods and precious things are collected and laid up.”124

It’s also “the things laid up in a treasury” or “collected treasures.”

Jesus wasn’t talking about income. And he wasn’t talking about income sharing. He hadn’t just said,

“Share your income and give to charity.”

Instead, he had said,

“Sell your possessions and give to charity” (Luke 12:33).

This is a different conversation. It’s a different spiritual issue. It’s about the accumulation. It’s about assets. It’s about wealth. Income-sharing conversations won’t help with this.

The ministry to the rich

1 Timothy 6:17-19 describes a ministry to the rich. We talk about wealth because that addresses the spiritual needs of this group. We talk about wealth because we care about them.

We actually want them to enjoy their wealth. That’s why God gave it to them in the first place. Paul points them to,

“God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17b).

They enjoy it by using it

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

That’s a positive message!

But there’s another side. If we fail to persuade them, we know what they’ll do. They’re the accumulators. They’ll bury it. And they’ll die with it.

We’ve read the ending of that story. We know what they’ll be facing. We don’t want that for them. So, we talk about wealth.

Income sharing is fine. But it’s not the main stewardship issue for this group. The stewardship issue for this group is different. The key question is different. The key question is

This is a different question because this is a different group. They need a special message. They need a special ministry. They need precisely that ministry directed in scripture. Sadly, this message and this ministry are often missing.

The missing ministry

This ministry is important. It’s important for the wealth holders. It’s important for the ministries they could fund. And in modern churches, it’s all missing. This message is missing. These conversations are missing. This ministry to the rich is missing.

Ministers are willing to have income-sharing conversations. They’ll preach income-sharing messages. But they avoid wealth conversations. They avoid talking to the wealthy about their wealth plans.

In the US, there are professional associations focused on gifts of wealth. These are gifts like noncash assets, real estate, business interests, estate gifts, endowments, trusts, and so forth.127 I speak at many gatherings of such groups across the country. These meetings have fundraisers from every kind of charitable organization.

Except one. There are no local churches. There are no stewardship ministers. There are no executive pastors. There are no local church employees. In the churches, this fundraising is missing. This ministry is missing. This isn’t just a fiscal tragedy. It’s also a spiritual one.

Wealth sharing matters in fundraising

This focus on wealth matters. Wealth matters in ministry. Wealth also matters in fundraising. It mattered 2,000 years ago. It still matters today. The data prove it.

A few years ago, the IRS changed its data-sharing policies for IRS Form 990. You probably aren’t excited by that statement. I understand. But for me, it was very exciting.

US nonprofits file this form each year. It reports their finances, including contributions. These are public records. Researchers could request these forms one at a time but couldn’t get the whole database.

Then, that changed. The IRS started sharing the whole database. This had six years of data from over a million tax returns. It showed whose contributions were growing and whose weren’t. What predicted this difference? Statistical analysis gave some answers.

One difference was massive. Some charities’ contributions came entirely from gifts of cash. Others also included gifts of assets, like securities and real estate.

Over 5 years, contributions growth averaged 11% total for those receiving only cash gifts. That was the same as total inflation. On average, cash-only charities were just treading water.

Those receiving gifts from securities (at both the beginning and end) were different. On average, their total 5-year growth wasn’t 11%. It was 66%. This was a six-fold difference in long-term contributions growth.128

This one piece of information told a lot. Suppose a charity was only receiving gifts of cash. If they stayed on that path, they wouldn’t grow. On average, they would only keep up with inflation.

Suppose a charity also received gifts of noncash assets, like securities or real estate. If they stayed on that path, they would grow tremendously. On average, their growth would be 6X that of the cash-only charities.

Charities receiving gifts of assets are likely talking about gifts of assets. They are talking about gifts of wealth. Charities receiving no gifts of assets are likely not talking about gifts of assets. They aren’t talking about gifts of wealth.

Wealth-sharing examples and wealth-sharing conversations create a different fundraising trajectory. An organization that talks about gifts of houses, land, or business interests is on a different path.

How can we get there? Giving examples of individual named donors who make gifts of assets works. (See Acts 4:37). Giving examples of groups of donors who make gifts of assets works, too. (See Acts 2:45, 4:34). Having conversations about wealth also works. (See 1 Timothy 6:17-19). These produce fundamentally different fundraising results. An analysis of a million nonprofit tax returns shows it to be true.

Wealth sharing matters because it’s all relative

A six-fold difference in fundraising growth is a big deal. It’s an even bigger deal because this isn’t just one story. It’s not just what happened in one place. It happened in every sector across the universe of US nonprofits.129

What explains this massive difference? Two ideas from behavioral economics give some insight: relative comparisons and mental accounting.

First, people tend to make decisions based on relative comparisons. What is our natural comparison point if we make a gift of cash? It’s other things we use cash for. It’s what we just spent at Starbucks or 7-Eleven.

A cash decision is a pocket change decision. We compare it with other pocket change decisions. This comparison point makes a large gift seem outlandish. It doesn’t fit with the comparison point.

Suppose we instead make a gift of stocks. It comes from our stock portfolio. What’s the natural comparison point? It’s our stock holdings. As a share of that wealth, a large gift may seem very small. It seems appropriate.

Shifting from a gift of cash to a gift of assets changes the reference point. This makes a difference. Sometimes, the difference can be immediate. One fundraiser shares this story:130

“I had a donor on the phone. He said, ‘I’m going to send you a check for $2,000.’

I said, ‘Jim, is there any chance you have stock that is worth $2,000?’

He said, ‘Yes, absolutely. But I don’t want to sell that stock.’

I said, ‘Take the cash. Go buy that exact same stock. Then, send us the old shares worth $2,000. Now you have stepped-up basis. That highly appreciated stock now starts at zero for capital gains tax purposes. And you get a charitable deduction as well.’

He asked, ‘I can do that?’

I said, ‘Yeah.’

The next day, we received a stock gift … of $10,000 from the donor.”

The fundraiser didn’t ask for a gift of a different amount. The fundraiser asked for a gift of a different type. As a result, the gift size increased 5X. The gift changed from cash to assets. It changed from disposable income sharing to wealth sharing.

Wealth sharing matters because categories matter

Another concept from modern behavioral economics is called “mental accounting.” The idea is this. To an economist, all money is the same. Money is money. But that’s not how people behave. Instead, they put different labels on money. Then, they treat that money differently based on those labels.

For example, people treat money from earned income one way. They treat money from an unearned windfall differently. This also matters for fundraising. People are less generous with regular earned income.131 They’re more generous with unearned windfalls.132

For most donors, giving is exclusively a disposable income decision. Gifts come from regular earned income. They’re limited to that category. Those gifts may be consistent, but they’ll never be big. They’re in the wrong category for that. Regular earned income is not the big category. Wealth is the big category. Big gifts are gifts of wealth.

That simple insight is key. Shifting donors from a disposable income gift to a gift of wealth is powerful. It’s psychologically powerful. Even if it’s the same size, a gift of assets – like stocks – differs from a gift of cash. It’s a different type of gift. Getting that new type of gift changes things. It mentally transforms the wealth category. It makes their wealth “donation relevant.”

We also see this behavior in another charitable context. For most people, the first time they will ever commit to a gift from their wealth is in their estate plan. A gift in a will is not a gift from disposable income. It is a gift from accumulated wealth.

Committing to this gift of wealth changes things. It makes the wealth category “donation relevant.” That change in mental accounting changes giving behavior.

A national study showed this.133 It compared people’s giving before and after they made a charitable estate plan. Afterward, their annual giving increased by 77%. These were the same people before and after. But their behavior changed. This giving increase was sustained 2 years, 4 years, 6 years, and even 8 years later. The change was permanent.

The impact on very large gifts was even more dramatic. The probability of gifts over $10,000 doubled after their new estate planning. Committing to a gift from wealth transformed their giving behavior.

Wealth sharing matters because families share things

Gifts of disposable income are given in cash. Gifts of wealth are often given as assets like stocks and real estate. They are given as houses, land, business interests, collectibles, or estate shares. These gifts are different. They’re things, not money. This can make a difference psychologically.

Families share things. So do friends. A holiday gathering often involves sharing food, housing, and even clothing. People bring gifts for each other.

What don’t they do? They don’t pass around money. Money is different. It’s transactional. It’s for the market, not the family and friends.

Suppose a new person moves to the neighborhood. How might we welcome them? We might stop by with some food or a gift basket. We might hand it to them and say,

“Welcome to the neighborhood!”

What would we not do? We wouldn’t stop by and hand them some money. That would be weird – maybe even offensive.

In economics, both actions seem the same. If anything, handing them cash is better. They can use it to buy exactly what they want. But that’s not how social relationships work. Gifts of things are pro-social. They signal social closeness. Money is transactional. It signals social distance.

Experimental research shows this. In experiments, reminding people of money makes them more independent and competitive.134 It makes them less helpful.135 It makes them less compassionate.136 It even reduces donations.137

Money is anti-social. But gifts of objects are pro-social.138 Giving items, rather than their cash equivalent, is seen as more generous, kind, helpful, and charitable.139 These gifts are more social. They’re more friendly.

Wealth-sharing conversations are often conversations about things. They’re conversations about houses, land, business interests, or valuable personal property. These conversations may be more complicated. But they’re also more social. They’re conversations about things, not just money. This more social setting encourages sharing.

In 1 Timothy, the church is to act as a family. Wealth sharing is, in many ways, family sharing. Families often pass massive economic value through generations. But they do it in a specific way. They rarely do it by handing out cash. They do it by sharing things.

Family businesses often stay within the family. They’re given to family members. Family land is often treated the same. It’s given to family members. Family heirlooms aren’t sold for cash. They’re handed down. They’re given to family members. Transfers to family members are typically transfers of things – not cash.

The philanthropy of 1 Timothy 6:17-19 is this same type of transfer. It’s wealth sharing – not just giving cash. It’s an intensely social philanthropy. It’s the philanthropy of a family.

Wealth sharing looks different

This ministry encourages wealth sharing. Wealth sharing is a different mental action than normal giving. It comes from a different mental category.

Often, wealth sharing is also a different physical action than normal giving. It looks different. It uses different instruments. It often involves sharing noncash assets like houses, land, and business interests.

This is different from simply asking for money. It often requires more work. Just asking for money isn’t complicated. It doesn’t require understanding wealth. It doesn’t require familiarity with assets, asset transfers, wealth management, or estate planning. Wealth conversations sometimes do.

Encouraging wealth sharing can be harder. Wealth conversations can be more intimidating. The topics can be more intimidating. Even the people can be more intimidating.

Most asset giving comes from the top 1%.140 Most estate giving comes from the top 0.1%.141 If we focus on wealth sharing, we will be working with wealth holders.

This is not about just asking for money. It’s about having wealth conversations with wealth holders. That’s different. It’s often more work. But it’s powerful.

Wealth matters

Paul directs Timothy to a specific ministry. It’s a ministry about wealth. This is not just about fundraising. It’s about wealth sharing. Wealth sharing is different. Wealth sharing is different because wealth is different. It’s a different money category. It’s a different money psychology.

Asking for gifts from those who are not wealth holders is fine. Asking for gifts from income is fine. Those can be important tasks. But that’s not this ministry.

This ministry is about wealth. In 1 Timothy 6:17-19, Paul makes it obvious. He references accumulated wealth once. Then, twice. Then, three times. Then, four times. Then, five times. Then, six times. Then, seven times and maybe more, all in just one sentence.142

From ancient scripture, we can see that it is commanded. It’s a necessary focus. It’s a necessary ministry. From modern research, we can see that it works.

Focusing on wealth sharing transforms fundraising. It transforms a person’s current and future giving. It transforms a charity’s current and future contributions. The ancient words are true. They work. They worked 2,000 years ago. They still work today.

Part III

The Past-Present-Future Wealth Conversation

The past-present-future scriptural pattern

In this passage, Paul talks about the donor’s wealth. He talks about its past, present, and future.

He talks about its past. What’s its origin? It’s been richly provided by God.

“God, who richly supplies us with all things” (1 Timothy 6:17c).

He talks about its present. Right now is the opportune moment. Those who are rich are rich

“at this opportune moment [en to nyn kairō]” (1 Timothy 6:17b Codex Sinaiticus)

Right now, they can use it for enjoyment. They can enjoy it by using it

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

He talks about its future. The opportune moment is now. But this opportunity will disappear. Their wealth is uncertain. It’s disappearing. He points to

“the uncertainty [adēlotēti] of riches” (1 Timothy 6:17c).

The near-term future of their wealth holding is uncertain. The long-term future is disappearance. He explains,

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

They can’t take it with them when they die. But they can choose a different future. Wealth holders can convert their wealth into a lasting treasure. They can enjoy it in a lasting way. They can enjoy it by

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

Paul covers the past, present, and future story of the rich Christian’s wealth. That’s great theology. But let’s get practical. How can we talk to rich Christians about their wealth?

We can do it the same way. We can talk about the past, present, and future of their wealth.

How, exactly, do we do this?

We want to have wealth conversations. Beyond this, we want to have wealth conversations with urgency. Specifically, we want the rich Christian to feel that

“Now is the time to decide what to do with my temporary wealth.”

So, how do we get there? How do we make this happen? Next, we’ll look at some practical approaches. These approaches are different, but they share an underlying idea. That idea is to bring the future forward. It’s to force the rich person to choose the ending of their wealth story. It uses future reality to trigger immediate action. It moves “maybe someday” to “now is the time.”

We see this same idea in 1 Timothy 6. Paul interrupts the ordinary world of habitual wealth accumulation. He points to the future. He shows how that ordinary world is disappearing.

The rich Christians’ wealth holding will end. But they have a brief window of opportunity. They have a chance to choose. But that opportunity is temporary. They will eventually lose it all. But right now they can convert it into something permanent.

Paul brings the future forward. He triggers action with the end in mind. He pushes the rich Christian to focus on the end of their wealth holding story. He pushes them to act today in light of that future. We can do the same.

Your past-present-future asset story

This is a ministry about wealth. It’s a ministry about wealth holders, wealth management, wealth enjoyment, wealth usage, wealth impact, and wealth diversification. If we want a ministry about wealth, we have to have wealth conversations.

Wealth is not held in cash. It’s held in assets. It’s held in assets like houses, land, and business interests. Assets have stories. We can elicit those asset stories. We can learn about an asset’s past, present, and future story.

This can start with simple questions. We can ask about the origin story of the assets. For example,143

These can open a conversation. It’s a conversation about assets. It’s a conversation about wealth and wealth management. It starts with the asset’s origin story.

But suppose we don’t know enough to even ask about their assets or their wealth. How else can we start a wealth conversation? We can ask about their giving source. For example, we might ask,

The idea is to learn about their wealth.146 It’s to learn about their wealth origin story.

The origin story of wealth or an asset is a great place to start. But it’s not enough. The asset story needs to progress. We need to get to the future. A natural way to do this is to move from past to present to future. Questions about the present might sound like this:

The future asset punchline

These questions have a point. The point of the past-present-future sequence is to get to the future. This is the fundraising punchline.

Paul focuses on the future of the donors’ assets. He puts it at the center of his message. He begins his wealth discussion with it:

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

He continues referencing their assets’ future:

“nor to put their hope in wealth, which is uncertain/disappearing [adēlotēti]” (1 Timothy 6:17b)

Finally, he points to an ideal future for their assets:

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

Paul repeatedly points to the future of the donors’ assets. In practical fundraising, the goal is the same. It’s to discuss the future of the asset. It’s to discuss the future of the wealth. This can start simple. For example,

The key is the future. It’s the key because, aside from giving, there are only two options. It doesn’t matter what the asset is. It doesn’t matter what the asset story is. The story can end in only two ways:

Both of these create ideal scenarios for a giving conversation. An upcoming sale is a perfect setting to talk about giving. It’s much easier to share wealth at such moments. People are more generous with big, unearned gains than with regular, earned income.147 Follow-up questions could include:

If they aren’t planning to sell it, then they’re planning to die with it. This can trigger discussions about meaningful life goals. Paul too begins with this end in mind,

“You see we came into this world with nothing, and nothing is going with us on the way out!” (1 Timothy 6:7, The Voice).

This is a light, breezy way to make an obvious point about the future. Holding wealth is not a permanent option. As one writer puts it,

“life is ultimately like a game of Monopoly: you go around a few times; you collect paper money and houses; and then, sooner or later, it all goes back in the box.”148

Starting from this future makes it easier to hold wealth lightly. The question is no longer if they’ll lose the wealth. That loss is inevitable. The only question is if they’ll use it before they lose it.

The inheritance conversation

The future wealth conversation often leads to estate planning wealth conversations. A common future plan is just to leave everything as an inheritance. Providing for family is an important goal. (1 Timothy 5:8). But it’s not an unlimited goal. Paul explains,

“If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content.” (1 Timothy 6:8).

Once that goal is fulfilled, more is not necessarily better. Once that goal is fulfilled, the charitable conversation becomes relevant.

The inheritance conversation can lead to an important comparison. How much are they transferring to heirs each year right now? How does this compare to the size of the expected inheritance? If it simply replaces their annual gifts, then it matches their current desire to benefit heirs. If it’s dramatically larger, then something else is happening. The plan to leave a big inheritance might just be an excuse for hoarding wealth.

The estate planning topic can lead to other powerful wealth conversations. Suppose a person is planning to leave an inheritance. What might this conversation sound like?

“Hmmm. OK, so you’ve seen people get inheritances before, right? Does a big estate always lead to family harmony? (Luke 12:13-15). Does getting an unearned inheritance make people more likely or less likely to make wise life choices? (Luke 15:12-13).”

“Think about 100 years from now. How likely is it that this extra inheritance would have been used up? And how likely is it that it would be used according to your values?”

So, is the goal here to get a gift in the will? No. But that can be an important step. The estate gift is a commitment to give wealth. For most people, it’s the first time they’ll ever commit to a gift from their wealth, not just their income.

Committing to a charitable estate gift creates a wealth-sharing mindset. After that, making a big lifetime gift only changes the timing of the transfer, not the destination. That change in gift timing also increases gift enjoyment. It’s more enjoyable to make an impact today than to just imagine it happening in the future. It’s more fun to do it yourself than to just leave instructions for someone else to do it.

Time and money: A future focus makes big giving easy

We want to talk about wealth and wealth plans. As a practical matter, the fundraising “punchline” is this future. Getting the donor to focus on the future reveals a truth. The rich person’s ownership is going to disappear. Wealth comes with a timer.

Wealthy people like to hold wealth. That’s why they became or stayed wealthy in the first place. They didn’t blow it on wild living. They weren’t lazy about building, managing, or protecting it. Wealthy people like to hold wealth. They are accumulators.149

So, how do we get an accumulator to give? How do we get a hoarder to share? This starts by connecting wealth with time. It starts by moving to the end of the wealth-holding story. It starts by showing that wealth holding is temporary.

What do people want to do with their wealth? The accumulators want to hold it. They want to protect it. They want to keep it. Planning for the future reveals that to be impossible. They can’t keep it. Their ownership is going to disappear.

This recognition does several things. It reduces the importance of wealth holding. Wealth holding is, ultimately, futile. It can’t continue for long. At the end, too much wealth holding is foolish. Burying wealth just to die with it doesn’t help the owner at all.

The future of our wealth is the loss of our wealth. We are going to lose it no matter what. Facing this reality changes the logic of wealth hoarding. It also changes the cost of wealth sharing.

Is a $10 million gift expensive? If wealth holding were permanent, it would be. But wealth holding is not permanent. It’s temporary. If the alternative is just burying it and dying with it, which plan makes more sense? Which is a smarter use of the wealth? Which is more enjoyable?

Attaching time to wealth reframes the cost of the gift. It makes the big gift easy. It makes the big gift make sense. The wealth-sharing “call to adventure” is big. But the story setting makes it feel reasonable. It’s set in the land of disappearing wealth. Now is an opportune moment to do something with it before it disappears. This urgency encourages wealth sharing.

Part IV

This Is About Giving BIG!

Fear of big giving

Gifts of wealth are big gifts. They might be gifts of houses or land. They might be gifts of business interests. They might be gifts of estates. They are the largest charitable transfers. They are big gifts. Wealth sharing is big.150

For many people, big fundraising is scary. Why? Why would we rather discuss a $100 gift than a $100 million gift? Conversations with wealthy people can be scary. Conversations with wealthy people about their wealth can be even scarier. Conversations with wealthy people about sharing their wealth may be the scariest of all.

But if the goal is to get a person to do good, this changes things. We don’t want him to do just a little bit of good. We want him to do a lot. Doing more good is better! We don’t want him to have just a few little good works. We want him to be rich in good works! We don’t want him to give just a little bit. We want him to give big!151

Do you want big giving?

“We found that the bottom 80% of fundraisers by money raised had average asks of 44% of their [donors’] internal capacity ratings … When the top 20% of fundraisers asked for a gift, their average ask was just over 100% of the rating.”152

Do you want your donors to give big? Most fundraisers did not. They didn’t even ask for that gift. In data analytics, giving big means giving at capacity. The top performers – the 20% of the 80/20 rule – asked for gifts at the donor’s capacity. They asked big. The others did not.

The top performers were different. Their asks were different. Their mindset was also different. Again, the researchers explained,

“The higher performing fundraisers were more likely to say, ‘Research says this donor can give $100k. I start by thinking, 'What would it take for them to give $100k?'’ In other words, they were trying to determine how to get the best gift from each donor ... These confident fundraisers will begin with the question, ‘What would it take for this prospect to give a gift at their capacity?’”153

Fear of wealth conversations

This is a ministry to the wealthy. It’s a ministry about their wealth. It has a message about sharing their wealth. How does Paul’s instruction differ from the typical approach to these topics?

Often, we don’t like to talk about money. A WWJD bracelet is fine. Actually talking about money as much as Jesus did? That’s a different story. But talking about money is necessary. If we don’t talk about money, it’s hard to encourage generosity.

Of course, Paul’s instruction goes beyond this. It’s more extreme. He isn’t just talking about money. He’s talking about wealth. He’s talking about the donor’s wealth. He’s directing Timothy to talk to the donor about the donor’s wealth.

Fundraisers are good at talking to people. So are ministers. They’re good at talking about people’s lives. They’re good at talking about their own organizations. They’re good at talking about many things – but not wealth.

Maybe it’s fear. Maybe it’s self-doubt. Maybe it’s ignorance. Whatever the cause, fundraisers often aren’t even trying. They aren’t trying to talk about wealth. They aren’t trying to have wealth conversations. This resistance is natural. It may be why Paul felt it necessary to mention wealth seven times in one sentence.

This is a different kind of fundraising. These are not small, pocket-change decisions. These are major lifeinvestment gifts. This is not income sharing. It’s wealth sharing. It’s not just giving. It’s giving big.

Let’s get practical. What do these large gifts look like? What do mega-gifts look like? One study looked at the largest gifts received by hundreds of different colleges and universities. These gifts were massive. They were also different. They looked different. They looked like wealth.

These massive gifts were gifts of assets, not cash. In fact, most of these mega-gifts didn’t include even a single dollar of cash.154 Not one penny. This was wealth sharing, not income sharing. Wealth sharing looks different because wealth looks different.

Learn something about wealth

Suppose you decided to start a prison ministry. Would you maybe want to learn something about prison life? That might be a good idea, right? Or would you object,

“But I’m never going to be a prisoner. So why do I need to learn this stuff?”

Of course not.

We learn the stuff because this is the group we are ministering to. We need to know what they care about. We need to know the challenges they’re dealing with. As we learn more, it makes it easier to have conversations. It makes it easier to connect.

Now suppose we’re going to follow Paul’s instructions and have a ministry to the wealthy. Might we want to learn something about wealth? That might be a good idea, right? Should you object,

“But I’m not going to be a wealth manager or tax accountant. I’m certainly not going to become wealthy. So, why do I need to learn this stuff?”

Of course not.

We learn the stuff because this is the group we are ministering to. We need to know what they care about. We need to know the challenges they are dealing with. As we learn more, it makes it easier to have conversations. It makes it easier to connect.

If we’re intimidated by wealth management, we won’t bring it up. We’ll tend to avoid wealth conversations.155 If we’re intimidated by the wealthy, we won’t be effective ministers to them.156 We’ll tend to avoid them.

Fear is the enemy of effective ministry. Fear keeps people from foreign missions. It keeps people from prison ministry. And it keeps people from ministering to the rich.

Asset-donor stories in ancient words

We want to minister to the wealthy. We want to have wealth conversations. We want to encourage wealth sharing. We can start by learning something about wealth. But what then? How do we start the conversation?

There are several ways to have wealth conversations. Scripture gives us examples. The most common example is … the example. In fundraising terms, this is the donor story.

When Paul wants to encourage the Corinthians to give, how does he start? He starts with an example. He starts with the example of other donors. These are nearby donors who are like the Corinthians. They’ve already given. They’ve given a lot.

Luke explains how giving worked in the early church. How? He gives examples. He gives examples of asset gifts. He gives examples of groups of asset gift donors. He explains,

“all who were owners of land [chōriōn] or houses [oikiōn] would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales” (Acts 4:34b).

He explains,

“They sold their lands [ktēmata] and other property [hyparxeis], and distributed the proceeds among all,” (Acts 2:45a).157

He also gives an example of a specific donor’s asset gift. He names Barnabas. Barnabas

“owned a tract of land [agrou]. So he sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.” (Acts 4:37).

What you might miss in English is the great variety of Luke’s asset examples. This isn’t just an asset giving example. It’s five of them. The various asset gifts were:

Such asset donor stories are powerful. They’re powerful because asset-donor stories are wealth-sharing stories. Using many different examples can help donors realize that the asset-giving story applies to them, too.

Asset-donor stories in modern practice

Donor examples are helpful. They are powerful. We can use them in our own instruction. We might say,

“John, you’ve been such a great partner for this ministry. I want to thank you for all your many gifts. Let me ask you, have you ever considered giving something other than cash?

No? Well, the reason I ask is that I was working with another donor. You remind me of him, you both [insert similarity].

He recently made a gift, but instead of giving cash, he gave appreciated stocks. Since he owned them for more than a year, he still got the full tax deduction. By giving it, he also avoided the capital gains taxes that would have been due whenever he sold it. So, he got a double tax benefit.

This works with any appreciated asset. Is this something you might ever consider doing?”

We can give donor examples in a conversation. We can do it in a newsletter. We can do it on a website. We can do it in a letter.

Instead of just talking about some great new work, mention one of the donors who helped make it happen. Share a donor story. And why not make that donor story about a gift of an asset instead of cash? Or why not discuss their decision to include a gift in their will? A gift in a will is not income sharing. It’s wealth sharing. It’s another type of asset gift.

The idea is to share examples. We want to share examples of asset gifts. We want to share examples of gifts of wealth. As these examples accumulate, they create a “social norm.” They show that people “like us” make gifts like these.

How else might we give these examples? We could even do it in a donor survey. We might ask,

“Many people like to support this ministry in a variety of ways. Which of the following might you consider in the next six months?

Gift by check

Gift by monthly account withdrawals

Gift by credit card

Gift of stocks

Gift in a will [if you happen to sign a new one]

Gift in a will in memory/honor of a loved one

Gift from an IRA, 401(K), retirement account

Gift of real estate

Gift of unneeded life insurance policy

This would include checkbox options of: □Unlikely, □Possibly, □Likely, and □Would like more info.”

Asset sharing stories are powerful. They’re powerful because asset-sharing stories are wealth-sharing stories. Using many different examples helps donors connect that story to their own circumstances.

However we choose to do it, asset sharing examples and stories are powerful. They can spark an idea. They can establish a social norm. They provide an example of sharing wealth. They provide an example of sharing big!

Offering real wealth-sharing opportunities

This ministry is about wealth conversations. It’s about wealth and wealth sharing. That’s great. But when the donors decide to share wealth, will they do it at your organization?

Wealth sharing is giving, but it’s giving big. Are we offering big giving opportunities? Are they even an option on the menu? It’s not enough to say,

“We’ve never refused a check!”

Or,

“If we get that extra million, we’ll figure out something to do with it.”

That’s not motivational. It’s not visualizable. It’s not tangible. It’s not offering a compelling opportunity for the donor to do good work. It’s not offering to make them rich in beautiful, good works.

Suppose your organization has a special ministry. Maybe it’s an outreach for the homeless. The appeal is simply,

“Please support the homeless outreach.”

Is this an opportunity for wealth sharing? It’s hard to tell. Is it an opportunity for giving big? Is it a request for $100 or $100,000? It’s hard to tell. What difference would giving one versus the other make? What work would each buy? It’s hard to tell.

This just says, “Please give.” It gives no reason to make a large gift. A larger gift isn’t linked to any particular result. It’s not really on the menu.

Now, let’s change it. Let’s get specific about the work donors are buying. Let’s include a big gift option. Maybe it’s this:

“Our homeless ministry reaches over 100 people every month with emergency food, shelter, counseling, and sharing the love of Jesus. Your gift of $330 runs this entire program for a day. $10,000 covers a month. $120,000 runs it for the whole year. $2.4 million endows this outreach permanently.”

Now, the big gift becomes an option. The giving menu includes a big number with a big, specific impact. There’s a reason not just to give, but to give big.

Often, organizations fail to take even this first step. They never build big giving opportunities. They’re focused only on meeting some routine budget.

Saying, “We’ll accept a big gift,” doesn’t create a big giving opportunity. It’s not enough just to accept unrestricted checks. Our passage doesn’t tell donors to write a check. It tells them to do good work.

What specific, tangible good work does their gift buy at your organization? What good work will they do? Can they do it at scale? Can they move beyond doing good work to becoming “rich in good works?” George Barna’s study of church fundraising describes it this way:

“Unless the church can realistically provide people with a sense of the significance and the urgency of the financial need, the people will merely yawn and look to other [charities] … the most affluent churches are able to describe their ministry plans and adventures in terms of the necessity of raising specific sums of money to reach people-related goals.”159

Small gifts are given to an organization. Big gifts are not. Big gifts are given through an organization. Donors wield the organization as their instrument of impact. They use it as their tool to do good. This is why big gifts usually go to big organizations. They’re more reliable instruments for making a big impact.

If the large gift doesn’t make a specific impact, there’s no way to know what good it did. If we don’t offer donors that opportunity, they’ll still do good. They’ll just use a different instrument. They’ll use a different organization.

Always be offering

Other organizations are always ready to be an instrument of big impact. Wealthy donors to a university will hear about big giving options. They’ll hear about future construction possibilities. They’ll hear about endowed scholarships. They’ll hear about named professorships. They’ll hear about big gifts that buy specific results.

Attractive big gift options aren’t vague or fuzzy. Make sure your big gift options are clear and visualizable. Make sure they’re planned and ready to go. Make sure they’re on the menu.

Talk about wealth and wealth sharing. Talk about big gifts. Make big gifts attractive at your organization. Expect them. Plan for them. Offer them. Get good at them. Get good at becoming an instrument of big impact. Get ready for big giving!