Message 4: Giving is more enjoyable because everything comes from God! | The Biblical Fundraiser in Modern Practice

Biblical fundraising focuses on the past, present, and future story of the donor’s wealth.
Ordinary fundraising focuses only on the charity’s story.

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

Origin Reminders Build Gratitude

Triggering gratitude

Gratitude is great. Modern research shows that gratitude increases happiness, peace, and well-being.¹⁸⁶ It also increases giving and other altruistic actions.¹⁸⁷ It makes giving more enjoyable. So, how do we trigger gratitude?

Commands may not work.¹⁸⁸ Many frustrated parents have learned this. It’s tempting to say to a child,

“Quit complaining! You should be grateful!”

But I doubt you’ve ever heard a child respond with

“Yes, you are right. I don’t know what I was thinking. I should be grateful! Thank you for that reminder.”

So, when the direct command doesn’t work, what does? Modern research has a clear answer. Gratitude is triggered by recalling good things that have happened to us.¹⁸⁹ It’s further strengthened by recalling those who provided us with the good things.¹⁹⁰

These create gratitude. The effect is scientifically reliable. It’s highly replicated.¹⁹¹ So, too, is its effect on charitable giving. Increased gratitude results in increased generosity and giving.¹⁹² It makes giving more attractive.

Gratitude from donors

Reminding people of good things that have happened to them triggers gratitude. Reminding them of the ones who provided those good things triggers even more gratitude.
1 Timothy 6:17 does both. Timothy is to remind rich Christians that they have set their hope on
“God, who richly supplies us with all things for enjoyment” (1 Timothy 6:17b).
The word for “supplies” describes an up-close-and-personal, ongoing process.¹⁹³ God is in the up-close-and-personal, ongoing process of providing all things. He is providing life, family, friends, food, shelter, wealth, salvation, and everything else. Recognizing God as this ongoing source results in gratitude.
Gratitude is important in fundraising. This is true for gratitude to the donors from recipients. It’s also true for gratitude from the donors as recipients. In both cases, good gratitude does two things. It confirms relationship and impact. Good gratitude confirms a reciprocal relationship. The receiver desires to make the giver happy. It also confirms the gift’s impact. The gift made a difference for the recipient. We see both concepts in this passage.
The donors’ gifts are expressions of a relationship with God. They are reciprocal responses to God’s rich provision. They express a personal, emotionally bonded, ongoing relationship of mutual reciprocity.
The donors’ gifts are also expressions of a relationship with God’s church. This is not just giving away. It’s sharing together. The word for “share” in this passage is koinōnikous. This is mutual sharing within an emotionally bonded, fellowship community.
God’s rich provision makes an impact on the donors. They, in turn, use it to make the kind of impact that pleases God. They put it to work. (In Greek, work is ergon.) Donors use it to do intrinsically good work [agatho-ergein]. They use it to be rich in beautifully good works [ergois kalois].
They act as the good steward who takes the gold or silver talent God provided and
“immediately went and did business [ērgasato] with them, and earned five more talents.” (Matthew 25:16).
They do not act as the bad steward, who reports,
“And I was afraid, so I went away and hid your talent in the ground.” (Matthew 25:25).
They do not respond to God’s provision by saying,
“Master, here is your mina, which I kept tucked away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid” (Luke 19:20b-21a).
Donors are supposed to generate the returns the master desires. They put it to work. They produce good works. They produce so many good works they become rich in them. They create impact. The do this as an expression of relationship reciprocity with God.

Gratitude from major donors

Paying it back by helping others fits with scripture. But does this notion have any place in our modern, secular world? Is gratitude from donors actually relevant for wealth sharing? It is.
A 2021 study looked at the biggest gifts from the wealthiest donors. It analyzed letters from billionaires pledging to give away at least half of their wealth. The analysis found that
“The majority of letters express a social–normative rationale, consisting of two prevailing explanations:
An expressed gratitude and desire to ‘give back’ and
references to family upbringing as a socializing force”¹⁹⁴
Two primary motivations drove these largest gifts from the wealthiest donors. These were gratitude and personal backstory. Donors wanted to “give back.” This is gratitude. They were also motivated by their life history and values. This is their backstory. These are the modern motivations for the largest gifts of wealth. These are the same motivations used in 1 Timothy 6:17.
Paul begins with the donor’s backstory – their life history and values. They are in the already-in-progress state of being not conceited or above the fellowship community. They have, already in the past, put their hope in God, not in wealth.
Paul continues with gratitude reminders. He reminds them of the good things they have received. He reminds them of the One who provided these good things.
Paul opens with donor backstory and donor gratitude. These were powerful in the first century. They remain powerful today.

Gratitude for what?

Recalling the good things that have happened to us triggers gratitude. Recalling the ones who made them happen increases it even further. But does it matter what kind of good things we bring to mind?
1 Timothy 6:17-19 is all about wealth and wealth sharing. So, we might expect Paul to remind donors that their money comes from God. It would be natural to say,
“You’re rich. God has given you so much money! You should be grateful and share your money!”
But Paul doesn’t do this. Instead, he reminds them of
“God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy.”
His reminder is about the source of all good things, not just money.
Does this matter? In one experiment we tested a similar idea. The first group was instructed to
“remember and list three good things that have happened in your day and reflect on what caused them.”¹⁹⁵
The second group received a slightly different instruction. The phrase “good things” was changed to “good financial things.”
In the same way, the first group recalled good things
“related to any area of your life such as relationships, work, school, leisure, physical and mental health, spirituality, money, daily living, transportation, and so forth.”
The second group instead recalled good financial things
“related to any area of your financial life such as spending, savings, budgeting, planning, giving, investing, daily financial transactions, thoughts/feelings about money, conversations with others about money, earning money, and so forth.”
So, what happened? For those reminded of good things “related to any area of your life,” donation intentions rose. For those reminded only of good financial things, donation intentions fell. The effect on generosity didn’t just disappear. It reversed.

Reminders of all good things, even including financial ones, worked. Reminders of only financial good things backfired. ¹⁹⁶ Gratitude just for having money does not encourage sharing money. Instead, it highlights the attractiveness of having money. It encourages holding, not sharing.

Paul’s precise language works. He describes God’s rich provision to donors in many places. But these are never just financial benefits. These are the benefits from all things.
In his message to rich donors, Paul points to
“God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy.” (1 Timothy 6:17b).
In his own appeal for donations, he writes,
“God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work … You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion,” (2 Corinthians 9:8, 11a NIV).
In his response to receiving a donation, Paul writes,
“And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches” (Philippians 4:19a).
The rich are not to be grateful just for having wealth. Were they to spend it, lose it, or give it away, they would then lose their reason for gratitude. Instead, they are to be grateful for receiving all things.

The necessity of repetition in gratitude

Paul tells Timothy to “instruct [parangelle]”. This verb is a present imperative. It describes something to be done repeatedly. One commentary explains,

“The present tense here suggests a long term policy: Timothy was not merely to ‘tell them’ and the matter would be ended. He had to keep on telling them.”¹⁹⁷

So, what does modern research say? Is it important to “keep on telling them”? As mentioned earlier, we tested the “Three Good Things” gratitude reminder. This increased giving intentions. We tested this for seven different charities representing seven different causes.¹⁹⁸ It worked for all of them.
But the experiment didn’t stop there. We then had people do this same “Three Good Things” task each of the next seven days. Willingness to donate grew even more. It peaked right around day six or seven.
And then, we stopped. We stopped giving the gratitude reminders. Just one day later, the effect had disappeared. Willingness to donate dropped back to the level of those who had never received gratitude reminders. We tested both groups again 30 days later. The result was still the same. The difference had disappeared.
Gratitude reminders worked. They increased giving intentions. As long as we kept using gratitude reminders, they kept working. But when we stopped using them, the effect disappeared. A gratitude reminder created a change, but the effect was temporary.
Other experiments show similar results. For example, reminders of God or spiritual things increase giving to others.^¹⁹⁹ But this effect is temporary. In another study, more religious people were more likely to support charity. Further analysis gave the rest of the story. This difference arose only on days when they had visited their place of worship.^²⁰⁰ Without that recent reminder, religious people gave no differently than others.
The impact of such reminders is positive but temporary. This is true for reminders of moral values in general, not just religious ones. Reminders bring the values to the top of the mind.^²⁰¹ This, in turn, increases actions, such as giving, that match those values. Without these reminders, the values fade from attention. The behavior change disappears.

The necessity of repetition in fundraising ministry

What does all this mean for fundraising? It means it’s probably a good idea to follow Peter’s example and
“always remind you about these things—even though you already know them” (2 Peter 1:12b NLT).
It’s good to tell them. It’s better to “keep on telling them.”²⁰²
Our passage directs Timothy to instruct the rich. He is to instruct them that they have not (perfect tense)
“set their hope on the uncertainty of riches but on God, who richly provides us with all things” (1 Timothy 6:17b).
They already know these things. The perfect tense tells us they have already done these things. The idea is not new for them. The information is not new for them.
So why tell them? Why remind someone of something they already know? Because reminders are powerful. The power of such reminders isn’t about learning something new. It’s about acting in a way that matches what we already know to be true. Delivering this message is powerful. Delivering it repeatedly is even more powerful.
Triggering gratitude is not a one-time process. These are not single-use messages. These reminders must be repeated. The messages are powerful. They’re powerful as part of an ongoing ministry relationship. They’re powerful when they’re repeated. This is what worked 2,000 years ago. It’s what still works today.

Part II

The End of The Beginning of The Story

Backstory and setting

This passage is structured as a story. It has a main character – the rich Christian. It progresses through the backstory, setting, call to adventure, climax, and resolution. The backstory and setting sections end here. Next comes the call to act. This will be the main character’s challenge to do something.
Each story step is connected. The backstory and setting are not just random details. They establish the motivation to accept the call to adventure. They show why the main character will say yes to the challenge.
In an interesting story, the call to adventure will be big. It will be at – or seemingly beyond – the capacity of the main character. Yet, accepting this challenge will seem reasonable at that point. The lead-up to this call to adventure will make it feel reasonable.
The backstory and setting make the extreme choice feel appropriate. They do so by establishing identity and reframing cost.
Establishing identity: The main character must accept the challenge because of who he is. This identity comes from his people, values, and life story. His identity compels him to act. Saying yes reflects the kind of person he is.
Reframing cost: The challenge will be extreme. It will be costly or risky. Yet, at the point of decision, the circumstances will make the choice feel appropriate. The alternatives won’t be as attractive. The cost won’t feel as extreme. The extreme choice will become a reasonable choice.
Our passage follows these same steps. It makes a challenge. It’s an extreme challenge. It’s not just a challenge to share; it’s a challenge to share generously. It’s not just a call to do good works; it’s a call to be rich in good works. It’s not just a challenge about income sharing; it’s a challenge about wealth sharing. The backstory and setting motivate saying yes to this extreme challenge. They do so by establishing identity and reframing cost.

Backstory and setting: Social identity

This passage starts with the donor’s backstory. It starts with his social and spiritual identity. These will compel him to accept the challenge. They will compel him to share generously.
The social connection backstory
His social identity is not being conceited or “high-minded.” He is not disconnected from the fellowship community. He is in this already-in-progress, continuing process (Greek present tense). He is already being this person.
This connection to the fellowship community leads to sharing. He is a member of the group. He cares about the group. This compels him to share with the group.
The social example backstory
The rich Christian shares. He is not alone in his sharing. He is following the group’s mutual social norm:
“God … richly supplies us with all things to enjoy: to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share” (1 Timothy 6:17b-18).
The rich person is sharing what God has richly supplied. But so are all of “us.” His sharing matches what everyone else in the group is doing. It matches the social norm. It takes place among others who are doing the same.

Backstory and setting: Spiritual identity

The personal backstory
The rich person’s spiritual identity also compels him to accept the challenge. What do we know of this identity? We know he has placed his trust in God, not in riches.
This is not new. It’s been going on for a while. He is experiencing the present results of this past action (Greek perfect tense). Trusting in God is part of his life story. Not trusting in the uncertainty of riches is too.
The partnership backstory
The rich Christian relies on his partnership with God, not his riches. God is fulfilling His part of the partnership. God is in the ongoing process of richly supplying him with all things (Greek present tense). This, too, is part of the donor’s life story. God has richly supplied him in the past. God is richly supplying him now. God will richly supply him in the future.
God is the good partner. God gives first and trusts the partner. If the rich Christian refused to respond to God’s generosity with his own, he would be violating partnership values. He would be putting his trust in riches, not in God. He would be acting contrary to his own identity.
The godliness imitation backstory

Recognizing that God richly provides all things redefines the act of giving in another way. Giving is what God does.²⁰³ Giving follows God’s example. Thus, giving becomes a form of godliness. It’s a form of imitating God. One commenter notes,

“Following this paradigm, rich people need to be generous and rich in giving, imitating the model given by God (6:18).”²⁰⁴
The origin of the donor’s spiritual backstory

These spiritual backstory elements start with God’s rich provision. Because God richly provides, giving is an act of partnership. Giving fulfills partnership values. Because God richly provides, giving is an act of imitation. It is a form of godliness. Because God richly provides, giving is an act of gratitude. It is giving as thanksgiving.

If the rich person did not respond to God’s provision, it would contradict his backstory. It would contradict his identity. It would show him to be a disconnected, self-focused, money-trusting, God-ignoring, ungrateful, precarious wealth holder. This is not the rich Christian’s identity. It does not match his values, his people, or his life story. It’s not who he is. Thus, his identity compels him to give. It compels him to accept the challenge.

Backstory and setting: Reframing cost

In a compelling story, the main character will face a call to act. This call will not be easy, small, or mundane. It will be a call to adventure. It will involve extreme cost or high risk. It will be a real challenge.
However, the lead-up to accepting this call to adventure will reframe the cost. Given the circumstances, accepting the extreme challenge will appear more reasonable. Those circumstances reframe the relative cost of accepting the challenge.
This passage does exactly that. It reframes the cost of accepting the challenge. It reframes the cost of making a large gift. It does so in many ways.

Reframing cost: It’s wealth not income

A major gift is, of course, big. This passage is about giving big. But it also reframes the cost of the large gift. It does so first with the setting.
This story is not set in the land of income tithing. It’s not set in the land of almsgiving. It’s set in the land of wealth and wealth sharing. For the wealthy person, this creates a big reference point. A big reference point makes a large gift feel reasonable.
Suppose a person has savings of $1 million and an income of $100,000. This is an income of $8,333 per month. Perhaps 90% is dedicated to normal living expenses in a healthy situation. This leaves $833 per month of disposable income. This is about $28 per day.
Using this $28 daily reference point, what size of gift seems reasonable? $5? Maybe even $10? Certainly not $100,000! That seems crazy. It doesn’t fit. It doesn’t fit because the reference point is too small.
Notice how this changes when we start talking about wealth. This person has $1 million in savings. Using that as a reference point, what size of gift seems reasonable? The $5 or $10 gift no longer fits. The $100,000 gift no longer seems quite so crazy. The large reference point makes the large gift more plausible.
In this passage, the giving story is set in the land of wealth. In Greek, it’s a single sentence that references wealth seven times. It’s blunt. It’s obvious. It’s about wealth. This wealth setting reframes the cost of the large gift. It makes accepting the challenge feel more reasonable.

Reframing cost: It’s only temporary wealth

This passage is not set just in the land of wealth. It’s set in the land of temporary wealth. Paul brings this to mind with several arguments:
You can’t take it with you when you die.
You’re rich, but only right now at this critical moment.
Your wealth is uncertain (disappearing).
Wealth is temporary. This makes sharing it less painful. It’s going to disappear at some point anyway. So, the donor isn’t giving up that much. This reframes the cost of the large gift. It makes accepting the challenge feel more reasonable.

Reframing cost: Re-gifting from a windfall

A dollar is a dollar. But when the dollar comes easily, it’s easier to give. The source of the dollar changes how painful the gift feels. In experiments, people are more generous with “windfall” money than with regular earned income.²⁰⁵
The same idea applies here. What the rich Christians have was generously supplied to them. It came from God. They are giving what was given to them. That makes giving easier. This reframes the cost of the large gift. It makes accepting the challenge feel more reasonable.

Reframing cost: There’s more where that came from

The rich Christians have not set their hope on wealth. They have set their hope on God. God is the one who richly supplies all things. This is the source. This source is reliable. That means it isn’t necessary to hold every penny tightly. It isn’t necessary to rely on the uncertainty of riches.
Giving isn’t stressful because the source of our rich provision is still there. God will provide. He’s done it in the past. He’s doing it right now. He’ll do it in the future. We’re connected to this source of all things.²⁰⁶ (In fact, through giving, we become even more connected!)
Wealth is not just a fixed pool. It’s from a flowing river. Gifting isn’t as painful because there will be more where that came from. This reframes the cost of the large gift. It makes accepting the challenge feel more reasonable.

Reframing cost: I’m just the manager

Giving as an appointed manager isn’t painful. We’re not giving up that much. It’s not our money, anyway. We’re simply managing it. We’re managing it according to the instructions of the one who provided it.
The story of wealth in this passage is the story of stewardship. It was richly provided by God. We don’t get to keep it. God left instructions on what to do with it. (He left instructions on how to enjoy it!) We will eventually have to report how we used it.
Giving isn’t painful because we aren’t giving up much. We’re just the appointed manager following the owner’s instructions. This reframes the cost of the large gift. It makes accepting the challenge feel more reasonable.

Reframing cost: What’s the alternative?

Making a big gift is a big challenge. Or is it? That depends on the alternative. What is the alternative to giving?
The rich have more than they will likely need for normal living. They have extra. So, what are their options? This passage gives two.
Wrong choice: Bury your wealth to be lost by misfortune or death.
Right choice: Enjoy your wealth by putting it to work (doing good, becoming rich in good works, being generous and ready to share).
What, exactly, are the wealthy giving up by being generous? They have more than enough. So, they’re not going to use it for their basic needs. Also, they’re unlikely to waste it in wild living. If that were their nature, they would never have become, or stayed, wealthy.
What they are giving up is burying it in the ground. What they are giving up is dying with it. And that’s the best-case scenario! Often, even burying it will go wrong. A thief may break in and steal it. Moths and rust may cause it to decay. Crashing markets and inflation might do the same. A bad investment may wipe it out entirely. Then, they wouldn’t die with it after all. Instead, they would suffer through that painful loss experience before they die.
Giving isn’t painful because they aren’t giving up that much. The unattractive alternatives reframe the cost of making the large gift. They make accepting the challenge feel more reasonable.

Backstory and setting: Reframing cost

The call to adventure is a big challenge. Giving in this passage is giving big. It’s generously sharing wealth. It’s being rich in good works. But a big gift doesn’t have to feel painful.
Giving costs. How much it costs is a matter of numbers. But how painful that cost feels is not just numbers. It’s also framing. This passage reframes the cost of the big gift in many ways. Saying yes becomes a reasonable choice. It’s reasonable given
The large reference point for the gift
The temporary nature of the donor’s wealth
The source of the donor’s wealth
The source of the donor’s future provision
The donor’s role in managing the wealth
The unattractive alternatives to sharing generously
It’s a big challenge. But at the point of decision, the big challenge feels reasonable. It feels reasonable because of the backstory and setting.

The end of backstory and setting

This passage is structured as a story. A story progresses through the backstory, setting, call to adventure, climax, and resolution. This section ends the message’s backstory and setting. These show why the donor must accept the challenge. They show why his identity compels him to do so. They reframe the cost of the challenge as being reasonable. They lead up to the call to adventure – the challenge. They motivate accepting that challenge. Next comes the challenge itself.

Notes and references

See, e.g., Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: an experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377-389; Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421.
↩
See, e.g., Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs you. Psychological Science, 17(4), 319-325; DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Baumann, J., Williams, L. A., & Dickens, L. (2010). Gratitude as moral sentiment: emotion-guided cooperation in economic exchange. Emotion, 10(2), 289-293; Karns, C. M., Moore III, W. E., & Mayr, U. (2017). The cultivation of pure altruism via gratitude: a functional MRI study of change with gratitude practice. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00599; Komter, A. E. (2004). Gratitude and gift exchange. In R. A. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude. Oxford University Press, 195-212; Walker, J., Kumar, A., & Gilovich, T. (2016). Cultivating gratitude and giving through experiential consumption. Emotion, 16(8), 1126-1136.
↩
Although perhaps less powerful, even simple reminders may still help. In one study, a reminder to “be grateful for what you have” increased both the tendency to make donations and the size of those donations. [Paramita, W., Septianto, F., & Tjiptono, F. (2020). The distinct effects of gratitude and pride on donation choice and amount. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101972, 1-10. p. 4.]
↩
Such interventions can go by various names. For example, “Grateful self-reflection” is where “Participants were asked weekly to record three good things that had occurred.” “Counting blessings” is where “participants listed weekly up to five things they were grateful for.” In the “Three Good Things” intervention, participants “write down each day three good things that had happened to them over the course of one week and attribute causes to these positive events.” [Lomas, T., Froh, J. J., Emmons, R. A., Mishra, A., & Bono, G. (2014). Gratitude interventions: A review and future agenda. In A. C. Parks & S. M. Schueller (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions (1-19), John Wiley & Sons. p. 8.]
↩
In the “Gratitude Visit,” people are asked to write a letter to someone they are grateful to and hand it to them. The task resulted in “large gains in happiness and reductions in depression up to one month later.” A psychology textbook explains, “To date, the Gratitude Visit remains the most powerful positive psychology intervention in terms of degree of change.” [Lomas, T., Froh, J. J., Emmons, R. A., Mishra, A., & Bono, G. (2014). Gratitude interventions: A review and future agenda. In A. C. Parks & S. M. Schueller (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions (1-19), John Wiley & Sons. p. 6-7.]
↩
Diniz, G., Korkes, L., Tristão, L. S., Pelegrini, R., Bellodi, P. L., & Bernardo, W. M. (2023). The effects of gratitude interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Einstein (São Paulo), 21, eRW0371. https://doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2023RW0371
↩
See, e.g., Bock, D. E., Eastman, J. K., & Eastman, K. L. (2018). Encouraging consumer charitable behavior: The impact of charitable motivations, gratitude, and materialism. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 1213-1228; Liu, C. J., & Hao, F. (2017). Reciprocity belief and gratitude as moderators of the association between social status and charitable giving. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 46-50; Liu, Y. & James, R. N., III. (2023). Gratitude, finance, and financial gratitude in charitable giving: A repeated experiment over time. Financial Services Review, 31, 23-34.
↩
For details, see, “God the provider,” Chapter 6-I in The Biblical Fundraiser in Ancient Words: The Historical Ministry of Major Gifts Fundraising.
↩
Schmitz, H. P., Mitchell, G. E., & McCollim, E. M. (2021). How billionaires explain their philanthropy: A mixed-method analysis of the giving pledge letters. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32, 512-523. p. 512.
↩
Liu, Y. & James, R. N., III. (2023). Gratitude, finance, and financial gratitude in charitable giving: A repeated experiment over time. Financial Services Review, 31, 23-34.
↩
We see similar results across other experiments. Money reminders decrease generosity. [Roberts, J. A., & Roberts, C. R. (2012). Money matters: Does the symbolic presence of money affect charitable giving and attitudes among adolescents? Young Consumers, 13(4), 329-336; Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314(5802), 1154-1156; Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2008). Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 208-212.] Describing gifts using more financial, legal, or contractual language discourages sharing. [James, R. N., III. (2018). Describing complex charitable giving instruments: Experimental tests of technical finance terms and tax benefits. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 28(4), 437-452; James, R. N., III. (2018). Creating understanding and interest in charitable financial planning and estate planning: An experimental test of introductory phrases. Journal of Personal Finance, 17(2), 9-22.]
↩
Ward, R. A. (1974). Commentary on 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Word Books. p. 121.
↩
The Nature Conservancy, The American Humane Association, The American Red Cross, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, A Local Animal Shelter, and The Salvation Army
↩
See, e.g., Guéguen, N., Bougeard-Delfosse, C., & Jacob, C. (2015). The positive effect of the mere presence of a religious symbol on compliance with an organ donation request. Social Marketing Quarterly, 21(2), 92-99; Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychological Science, 18(9), 803-809. Experiment 1.
↩
Malhotra, D. (2010). “Sunday Effect” on pro-social behavior. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(2), 138-143.
↩
Glasman, L. R., & Albarracin, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778-822.
↩
Ward, R. A. (1974). Commentary on 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Word Books. p. 121.
↩
“This affirmation of God’s generosity and open-handed giving is strikingly similar to the characterization of God as the one who ‘gives to all generously and without grudging’ in James 1:5.” [Johnson, L. T. (1996). Letters to Paul’s delegates: I Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. Trinity Press International. p. 207.]
↩
Saarinen, R. (2008). The Pastoral Epistles with Philemon & Jude. Brazos Press. p. 112
↩
Arkes, H. R., Joyner, C. A., Pezzo, M. V., Nash, J. G., Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Stone, E. (1994). The psychology of windfall gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59(3), 331-347; Konow, J. (2010). Mixed feelings: Theories of and evidence on giving. Journal of Public Economics, 94(3-4), 279-297; Li, H., Liang, J., Xu, H., & Liu, Y. (2019). Does windfall money encourage charitable giving? An experimental study. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 841-848; Reinstein, D., & Riener, G. (2012). Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 229-240.
Social norms can explain this behavioral difference. In experiments, “Perceptions of what most people would consider a morally appropriate donation depend on the amount of income and whether it is a windfall.” [Drouvelis, M., Isen, A. & Marx, B. (2019). The bonus-income donation norm. CESifo Working Paper No. 7961, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3498718]
↩
Chris Oyakhilome explains, “I’m a free-flowing conduit of God’s wealth and blessings to others, and I’m plugged into an unending supply.” Oyakhilome, C. (2020). Rhapsody of realities. LoveWorld Publishing. p. 59.
↩