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

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

Doing Good: The Donor Experience

Doing good: How charities get it wrong

In this passage, what follows “for enjoyment” explains how to accomplish that enjoyment. It’s the “how to” manual for wealth enjoyment.362 Notice that it doesn’t say to just give money. Instead, it starts with, “to do good.” This Greek word references,

Paul’s instruction requires the donor to accomplish something. It requires the donor to complete something. It requires making an impact. That impact must match the donor’s inner desires.

The instruction is “to do good.” It’s easy for a charity to think,

“Do good? We’ve got that covered! Just this year, we’ve done X, Y, and Z.”

But that’s not the instruction.

The instruction is for the donor to do good. That means the donor’s gift must do good. It’s fine if a charity does good, but it’s not enough. The instruction requires that the donor does good.

Suppose a donor gives but doesn’t know how his gift has done good. Can he say he has followed this instruction? No. He can’t say that he has used his wealth “to do good.” He can’t say what, exactly, his gift has done.

The donor is “to do good.” That requires the donor’s gift “to do good.” This means answering the donor’s question:

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

Or simply,

“I made a gift. What changed?”

At first, answering this might seem annoying. A charity manager can think,

“We’re doing good work, isn’t that enough? Why must the donor know what their one gift has done?”

It might feel like a hassle. But it’s necessary. It’s necessary in this scriptural instruction. And in fundraising, it’s powerful. It’s powerful for the charity, the donor, and the fundraiser.

It’s also not as hard as we might think. This passage is about gifts of wealth by the wealthy. It’s not about small gifts from disposable income. Wealth-sharing gifts are much larger. Tying a specific outcome to a specific gift is easier for a larger gift.

Doing this makes fundraising more effective. Showing exactly how the donor’s gift will “do good” motivates larger gifts. Showing how the donor’s past gift has “done good” motivates repeated gifts.

Of course, just asking for money without a specific gift impact is easier. And it can sometimes work. But those gifts tend to be smaller. Large gifts usually do something specific. They do something visualizable and compelling. They do good.

Doing good: Delivering the donor experience

Paul’s message describes a donor experience. It’s an attractive experience. It spurs giving. It spurs repeated giving. It works. It works, but it’s rare. It’s rare because it requires a shift in the charity’s mindset.

Charities like to talk about themselves. They like to talk about the charity’s impact. Donors want to know about their gift. They want to know about their gift’s impact. Charities like to talk about how the charity has done good. Donors want to know if they have done good.

This is not just a matter of Greek semantics. It’s a key issue in modern fundraising. In 2023, the head of a leading major gifts consulting firm explained it this way:

“With several clients, we have surveyed both the donors and the fundraisers to understand their alignment. One question that continues to show separation is, ‘What do you most value from the development department?’ Or, when asked of fundraisers, ‘What is the most valuable thing development offers to the donors?’

For the donors, ‘How my gifts are used’ is the top or among the top three in nearly every survey. ‘How a donor’s gifts are used’ rarely breaks the top three in the fundraiser surveys. The donor experience is the most valued and also most underinvested strategy in many development programs.”364

Donors want to know how their gifts have been used. Donors want to know if they have done good. Paul’s instruction describes a donor experience. That donor experience is all about the donor’s impact.

Focusing on the donor’s impact is important. Their personal agency in making the impact happen is key. Experimental research shows this is most powerful for one particular group of donors: the rich.365 These aren’t just experimental results. They’re also practical realities.

Josh Stamer works with clients of extreme wealth. His company serves as a philanthropic “family office.” It helps develop and execute their charitable plans. He explains,

“Our clients have a strong attraction to ‘I did that’ philanthropy. They want to be able to see meaningful results that allow them to know in their hearts, ‘I did that. I made that happen.’”366

A study of modern young entrepreneurs explained that they

“were interested in seeing immediate results and solutions to social problems and hence wanted to have hands-on involvement with the running of their supported organisations.”367

Another study noted that

“many of today’s donors … want a precise explanation of how their money will be used. They also want the opportunity to choose how the money will be spent.”368

The ultra-rich, the modern young entrepreneurs, and even “today’s donors” want similar things. They want to make an impact. They want to have agency.

This, of course, is nothing new. People are not motivated to give money. They are motivated to do good. They are motivated to do good work.

Doing good: Donor impact = donor joy

Donors want to know about the impact of their gift. Did it accomplish anything? Did it do any good? In 1 Timothy 6:17-18, doing good is a means of getting to enjoyment. It’s a way to enjoy what God has richly blessed us with.

Giving that accomplishes something is joyful. Reporting the gift’s impact leads to joyful giving. It allows the donor to know what good his gift has done. Reporting only the charity’s impact doesn’t do this. It doesn’t explain what difference the donor’s gift made. It doesn’t explain how that donor fulfilled the instruction “to do good.”

Donor impact leads to donor joy. This is not just theory. Experimental research finds the same thing. One study reported,

“In an experiment using real charitable appeals, giving more money to charity led to higher levels of happiness only when participants gave to causes that explained how these funds are used to make a difference in the life of a recipient.”369

A fundraising expert describes the concept this way:

“Here is an experience of my own—when I received a personal update letter, and the rush of pleasure and joy when I learned about the results of my gift.”370 (Emphasis added.)

The “joy” comes from learning “the results of my gift.”

This reality leads to practical fundraising advice. Consider this practical issue. How can we get board members motivated to give? A book on the topic gives this guidance:

“If you can get them enthusiastic about what they are actively accomplishing through their work and their personal gifts, you will have lots more money coming from them. Like all donors, they experience joy when they see the results of their gifts.”371 (Emphasis added.)

One study tracked the step-by-step emotional states of donors during the giving process.372 Describing a person in need created negative emotions. Next, providing an option to donate helped. It created “anticipated positive emotions.” Next, actually donating created emotions that were even more positive. But making the gift wasn’t the end of the donor’s experience.

If there was feedback on the gift’s impact, these positive emotions stayed high. However, without feedback on the gift’s usage, things changed. Negative emotions rose. Donors became more likely to report emotions such as being unhappy, distressed, or sad. Also, positive emotions fell. Donors became less likely to report emotions such as being happy or content.

In this experiment, giving brought enjoyment. But without reporting impact, that joy disappeared. With no description of the gift’s effect – or any gratitude resulting from its impact – the joy evaporated.

Confirming that a gift has “done good” makes it enjoyable. Showing that it accomplished something makes it fun. Without this feedback, a gift appears to change nothing. It appears to do nothing and accomplish nothing. That takes the joy out of giving.

This focus on donor enjoyment is not just scriptural. It’s also practical. In the experiment, providing donors with feedback on the impact of their gift increased positive emotions. But it did something else, too. It increased intentions to donate again. Not doing this had the opposite effect. Providing no feedback after the gift caused future donation intentions to plummet.

1 Timothy 6:17-19 has an instruction for the rich. It instructs them to use what God has richly provided to do good. A charity can help. It can be the donor’s powerful instrument of impact. It can help the donor to do good. It can help the donor to do good work that accomplishes something. This donor experience is enjoyable. Donor impact brings donor enjoyment. Donor enjoyment brings repeated donations.

But there’s a catch. The charity actually has to deliver this donor experience. Otherwise, the gift doesn’t fulfill the instructions. Any anticipated enjoyment evaporates. As enjoyment disappears, so does the motivation to give.

Doing good: Overcoming the trust barrier

Trust is critical for charitable giving. If people don’t trust a charity, they won’t give much. Paul’s fundraising campaign intentionally addressed this issue. It used well-known, trustworthy men. They oversaw the collection and distribution of the funds.

Donors could trust that their money would be used as promised. Paul explained,

“taking precaution so that no one will discredit us in our administration of this generous gift; for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of other people.” (2 Corinthians 8:20-21).

It wasn’t enough just to act honorably. The administration also had to be honorable “in the sight of other people.” It was important to be able to see it.

Paul’s fundraising campaign was for “restricted” giving. It was for a specific project. Donors needed to know that those instructions would be followed. They needed to see it.

Trust is still an issue in church giving today. One study of church donors explained,

“another reason mentioned to explain low levels of financial giving: administrative distrust. Numerous parishioners mentioned concern about how funds are used as a reason inhibiting their personal giving and perhaps giving by other Christians. Some expressed muted concerns, like … ‘It’s not clear how it would be used.’”373

Gifts with specific outcomes help overcome trust barriers. If my gift buys specific work and I can see that work, then I know it did good. I don’t have to wonder or worry. I can see it. But if “it’s not clear how it would be used,” then I don’t know if my gift did good. I don’t know what difference it made. I can’t see it.

In experiments, lower trust in the recipient reduces giving. But there is a solution. Limiting the gift to specific tangible uses works. It increases giving, especially in a low-trust scenario.374 It overcomes the trust barrier. When my gift creates a tangible, visualizable result, I know it made a difference. I don’t have to have blind trust. I can see it. I can see the good work from my gift.

Part II

Doing Good: The Fundraiser Experience

Doing good: Answering the “how” question

Paul tells Timothy to instruct the rich. Part of this instruction is “to do good.” This word references work that “accomplishes something.”375 But, how can the donor do this? How can the donor give in such a way that his gift will accomplish something? How can he give so that it will do good?

Answering this question is part of the job of instructing. An instructor must be able to explain how. Just saying, “Give money to our charity,” doesn’t answer this question. It doesn’t answer:

Instructing “to do good” means answering these questions. Doing this also works in the real world. It makes fundraising more effective.

Suppose a fundraiser says, “Our charity does good work. Please give.”

The fundraiser has asked for money. But he has not shown the donor how to buy work that accomplishes something. He has not instructed the donor how to do good.

A compelling ask explains exactly what the gift would accomplish. It shows the work the donor is doing. Constructing giving opportunities with specific, visualizable outcomes is powerful. It shows how the gift does good.

Doing good: Gifts that accomplish something

The job is to instruct. It’s instructing “to do good.” Suppose, instead, the job was instructing “to do math.” How might we do that? Probably, we would go beyond just lecturing on the concepts. We would provide opportunities to put the teaching into practice. We would provide relevant examples for the students to try it out themselves. Ideally, instructing “to do good” is the same. It comes with personally relevant examples and options.

An effective fundraiser knows many ways a donor could use a gift “to do good.” He knows many ways for a donor’s gift to accomplish something. He can match these answers with each donor. He can provide personally relevant examples. This helps him to be a compelling instructor.

In some cases, creating these options is easy. There may be specific, visualizable opportunities to do good in a way that accomplishes something. Funding new construction works well. The building costs $X. A room costs $Y. $Z pays for 5% of this project.

But what about the boring stuff? What about utilities, maintenance, or administrative overhead? Using other funds to cover these costs and donor funds to cover the more compelling parts works.376 But we can also describe the expenses in terms of what they accomplish. We can describe how they “do good.”

For example, paying for “overhead” isn’t attractive. It doesn’t appear to accomplish anything. But what about “overhead to build long-term organizational capacity”? It’s still overhead. But it’s overhead that accomplishes something. In experiments, this slight wording change increased giving.377

Packaging such expenses together with more visualizable elements works, too. The entire package is what accomplishes the good. A gift for new construction is compelling. But so is a gift for a new “permanent” building, including a fund for utilities and maintenance. A comprehensive capital campaign works the same way. It combines overhead and operations with tangible construction goals.

Some ministries don’t have any specific tangible elements to sell. In that case, a per diem framing can work. For example,

“Each week this domestic violence ministry reaches over two dozen women in need. Your gift of $4,800 will pay for an entire week. It pays for all the work like midnight rescues, answering the 24-hour hotline, counseling sessions, food, clothing, and shelter – down to every button and staple. $21,000 covers a month. $250,000 runs it for an entire year. $5 million endows it permanently.”

This describes what the gift accomplishes. It makes the outcome tangible and visualizable.

George Barna studied church fundraising across America. What approach worked best? He summarized it this way:

“Donors must be put in touch with specific, tangible ministry goals that get them excited.”378

1 Timothy 6:17-19 describes a ministry. It’s a ministry of instructing. It instructs the donor to do good. The word references work [ergon] that “accomplishes something.” Work that accomplishes something is tangible and visualizable. This makes it compelling. Just asking for money doesn’t do this.

The effective instructor gives examples. He gives options and opportunities. He describes gifts in terms of what they accomplish. He doesn’t just ask for money. He asks donors to do things – to accomplish things – that happen to cost money.

This approach is effective. It makes the fundraising more compelling. It also does something else. It gives a tangible reason for a larger gift.

Doing good: Motivating big gifts

We can fundraise without describing what the donor’s gift will accomplish. We can just ask for money. We can simply say, “We do good work. Please give.”

This can generate a gift. But here’s the problem. This doesn’t motivate a gift of any particular size. Whether it’s $100 or $100,000, the gift doesn’t accomplish anything specific. One size feels like the other.

Such a gift just expresses general approval. It’s a “pat on the head” gift. It’s an “isn’t that nice for you people” gift. It doesn’t accomplish anything in particular. It doesn’t do anything specific. Both the large and the small gift have the same vague outcome.

This changes when gifts are described in terms of what they accomplish. When a specific gift does specific good work, it creates a reason for a larger gift. Gifts are no longer just general expressions of approval. They’re actually buying something. They’re actually doing something. They’re actually accomplishing something.

These gifts are different. They buy specific good work. They accomplish specific outcomes. Different outcomes have different price tags. The gift of $100 does one thing. The gift of $100,000 does something very different. This provides a reason not just to give, but also to give a specific amount. It provides a reason not just to give, but also to give big.

Doing good: Visual impact fundraising

Paul describes giving using “work” words. Literally, the term instructs the donor to “work good.” The donor also becomes rich in “good works.” Work is visualizable. It’s action. We can imagine it. We can picture it.379

So, too, when a donor’s gift does good, they should be able to visualize it. Numbers on a spreadsheet aren’t enough. It needs to be an experience. One book on major gift fundraising explains it this way:

“Remember that the role of an MGO [Major Gift Officer] is to experientially transport the donor right into the center of the problem the organization is addressing. If the MGO had a teleportation device, she could put donors in the middle of the action. They’d be able to hear, see, taste, and feel the experience. Until someone invents such a device, though, you must gather stories that take the donor to experience the sheer joy of seeing the need met.”380 (Emphasis added.)

Experiencing the gift’s impact leads to joy. We want the donor to feel that he is right there, doing the work. We want the donor “to hear, see, taste, and feel the experience.” We want him to feel that he has done good work. We want him to feel rich in good works.

And what is the result? It’s fundraising success. This is not just success in producing giving. It’s success in producing joyful giving. This impact reporting leads “the donor to experience the sheer joy” of doing good. Doing good is the ultimate donor experience.

Helping the donor to know and to feel that they have done good is powerful. It’s attractive. It works. It changes the donor’s experience. It also does something else. It changes the fundraiser’s experience.

Doing good: Putting the fun in fundraising

It’s a simple idea. Fundraising is not about asking for money. Fundraising is about asking people to do good. As one fundraiser puts it,

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

Asking people for money can be uncomfortable. Asking people to do good things is more enjoyable. This is true even if those good things happen to cost money. Just asking for money is all about loss, painful sacrifice, and maybe even begging. Asking people to do good things is all about impact, dreams, and enjoyment.

1 Timothy 6:17-19 describes the ministry of major gift fundraising. It has nothing to do with begging for money. Begging isn’t fun. It’s not a good deal for the donor. It’s not fun for the fundraiser.

This ministry is different. The whole point is enjoyment. The goal is to get the wealthy person not to bury their wealth and die with it, but to enjoy it. The way to enjoy it is,

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

Helping people to enjoy their wealth is fun. Helping people to use what God has richly provided to do good is fun. This ministry of major gift fundraising is fun. Norman Olshanksy describes fundraising this way:

“You will experience the joy of enabling people to achieve their philanthropic goals and dreams.”381

This is not arm twisting. It’s not high-pressure sales. It’s helping people to accomplish something. It’s helping people to do good. It’s helping the donor to experience enjoyment. Linda Lysakowski explains,

“Motivating donors does not mean persuading donors to do something that they don’t want to do or that is not in their best interest. Motivating donors comes through understanding that philanthropy brings joy to the donor and that if the donor really believes in the mission, motivation is simply a tool to bring about the donor’s wishes.”382 (Emphasis added.)

Or as Paul writes in his fundraising appeal letter,

“But in this matter I give you an opinion; for my doing this helps forward your own intentions” (2 Corinthians 8:10, WNT).383

The ministry of major gift fundraising delivers enjoyment. Instructing others how to have that experience is fun. It’s even more enjoyable because the alternative is so depressing.

The alternative to enjoying wealth is burying it. Burying wealth isn’t fun. Buried wealth is always at risk. Moth and rust destroy. Thieves break in and steal.

And if we make it through all the risk and anxiety, what is the reward? We get to die with it. We die with it, and it creates family fights over money. (Luke 12:13-21). We die with it, and then we have to explain to the one who richly provided it to us why we just buried it in the ground. (Matthew 25:14–30). That’s a story with a sad ending.

The ministry of major gift fundraising offers a better story. It offers a better deal. It turns wealth into enjoyment. It does so by helping the donor to do good. This is fun for the donor and fun for the fundraiser.

Part III

Doing Good: The Charity Leadership Experience

Doing good: Leadership barriers

Paul’s fundraising message is compelling. It works. It’s motivational for donors. Doing good work that accomplishes something is attractive. (Just giving money isn’t.) Paul’s message is also motivational for fundraisers. Asking donors to do good things is fun. (Just asking for money isn’t.)

So why don’t more charities and ministries do this? There’s a problem. The problem isn’t with the donor. The problem isn’t with the fundraiser. The problem is with the charities’ leaders.

In Paul’s message, the donor gets to do good. This is attractive to donors. But it’s not as attractive to charity leaders. Why not? Because it’s not their story. And it’s hard work.

Doing good: Leadership effort barriers

Suppose we embraced the message of painful giving. Donors are supposed to give until it hurts and then give some more. What obligation does this place on the organization’s leadership? None. What kind of donor experience do they need to provide? None. What kind of cooperation or power-sharing with the donor is required? None.

This isn’t a “good deal” for donors. But if we embrace asceticism in giving, it’s not supposed to be. Instead, the donor’s experience is supposed to be painful. That’s what makes it virtuous.

This painful giving is less attractive to donors. But it’s quite attractive to leaders. It’s attractive because it’s easy. In the ascetic giving view, leaders have no obligations to the donor. They need not deliver any kind of donor experience.

Do the donors feel that they have done good? In the ascetic view, leaders can answer,

“It doesn’t matter.”

They can answer,

“That’s not my problem.”

Do the donors feel that they have become rich in good works? Do they feel that they have given well? Do they feel they are sharing with a mutual fellowship community, not just giving away to outsiders? Leaders can answer each question the same way.

“It doesn’t matter.”

Or,

“That’s not my problem.”

For leaders, this passive approach is easy. It doesn’t require any effort. Leaders aren’t trying to deliver a donor experience that’s worth the gift. They aren’t trying to deliver any kind of donor experience at all.

These attitudes don’t make for attractive giving. They don’t lead to major life investment gifts. They don’t lead to joyful giving. But they also don’t require much effort from leadership.

Doing good: Leadership story barriers

Effort is not the only barrier to delivering Paul’s fundraising message. The other barrier is even deeper. It’s a story barrier.

Paul’s message is attractive to donors. But it’s often not attractive to charity leaders. Why not? Because they are living a different story.

In their story, they get to do the good – not the donors. The charity leaders become rich in good works. They make it happen. They are in charge. They get to drive the car; donors are just there to fill up the tank.

In technical terms, this is a question of “agency.” This means: Who is the “person that acts to produce a particular result”?384 In story terms, this is a question of the protagonist. Who is the story’s main character?

Paul’s story is a story about the donor. The donor does good. Yes, a donor might use a charity as an instrument of impact. A charity can be a useful hammer for the donor to swing. But the donor is the one who swings the hammer.

Charities often want to tell a different story. Their story is about the charity. It’s about the charity’s leaders and employees. It’s about their impact. They are the ones who get to do good.

Which story is more compelling? For the charity leader, the charity impact story is more compelling. For the donor, the donor impact story is more compelling.

These stories conflict. They have different main characters. Different people hold “agency” in each story. Thus, Paul’s fundraising message will conflict with the natural inclinations of organizational leadership. They won’t like this story as much. They won’t like this message as much.

Paul’s message won’t feel as compelling to leadership. It won’t feel as compelling because it’s not their story. They aren’t the protagonists. They don’t have agency. They aren’t in charge.

Leaders can even feel like they are losing ownership of the ministry. A study of Christian school fundraising explained,

“donors also really enjoy helping to shape solutions alongside the nonprofits they support … It is often easier for leaders to accept smaller gifts than to engage donors in true partnership.”385

A study of successful fundraising in churches confirms this uneasy feeling. It explains,

“In today’s culture, people want to be active participants; they expect to be partners. People who own the ministry fund the ministry.”386

Paul’s fundraising message can feel threatening to leaders. It contradicts the leaders’ story. They’re not the heroes. They’re just the hero’s hammer. They can feel like they’re just being the donors’ minions. They scamper about doing the donors’ biddings. That’s not a compelling story for leaders. So, now what?

Doing good: Leadership failures

We have a conflict. We have a conflict of stories. How do we manage this conflict? How can we present Paul’s fundraising message in a way that won’t offend leadership?

In rare cases, leadership will embrace this message. This is a less egoistic view. It says,

“We’re just here as an instrument for donors to use. We’re the donor’s hammer. Our job is to instruct them to pick up this hammer and use it. We want them to use this ministry to do good! We want them to use it to become rich in good works!”

But suppose that’s not your situation. Suppose the most important thing for your leadership is power and control. If so, then Paul’s fundraising message will generate opposition. The leadership may respond that

Now what? One response is to drop the message. Instead, we just tell donors about the heroic organization. We talk about the great deeds of its employees and leaders. Then, we ask donors to give in honor of that greatness.

In this approach, donor instructions will never be allowed. All gifts must give all authority and power to the leadership. All gifts must be “unrestricted.” Leadership will love this approach. It’s the most ego-gratifying fundraising for them. And it will even generate some gifts. Small gifts.

Doing good: Real-world results

This is not just a snarky statement of opinion. This is an empirical reality. In experiments, allowing donors to restrict their gifts to specific uses increases giving.387 Big gifts of wealth come with instructions. A 2022 study examined the largest gifts made to over 1,000 colleges and universities. It found that,

“Only 14% of the gifts included unrestricted current use funding.”388

Notice this didn’t say that only 14% of these large gifts were unrestricted. It said that only 14% of these large gifts included even a single dollar for unrestricted, current-use funding. Big gifts of wealth come with instructions.

The most extreme form of gift instructions is the private family foundation. These involve pages and pages of legally binding instructions. They control the gift for decades or even generations. These also receive the bulk of the largest gifts. For example, estate gifts are gifts of wealth (not income). National data shows that for estates over $5 million, 78% of all charitable bequest dollars go to private family foundations.389

And what about estate gifts to religion? As wealth increases, the tendency to leave these gifts also increases. But these gifts never get big.390 They remain in the “pat on the head” category. Religious organizations are good at getting estate gifts. Small ones. Actual wealth sharing goes to donor-restricted gifts.

For mid-range wealth, these large gifts go to education and healthcare. These institutions promote large donor-restricted gifts. They promote scholarships, professorships, or endowments to attack specific illnesses.391 As wealth increases further, these large gifts shift to private family foundations. The level of donor control increases even more.

The impact of donor agency is easy to see if we change the context. Suppose churches treated volunteering in the same way that they treated giving. A member might say,

“I want to volunteer to help with our outreach to the poor. Who do I talk to about that?”

The minister would respond,

“You don’t get to decide that. You just tell us how many hours you will volunteer. Then we’ll decide where to use your hours. That’s the only way the church can accomplish its overall goals. We can’t just allow people to volunteer wherever they feel like.”

Would volunteering increase or decrease with that approach? We know the answer. Would giving increase or decrease with that same approach? It’s the same answer.

Donor agency leads to large gifts. Organizational agency leads to small ones. That’s what the data shows. So, what if our organizational leadership is unwilling to cede any control? How can we still fundraise with a message of donor agency? How can we still focus on donor impact?

Doing good: Leadership solutions

The message of donor agency is not attractive to organizational leadership. It conflicts with their own desire for agency. So, what can we do? Often, we can translate this message.

Suppose the leadership has approved a budget. They are in control. If a donor wants to fund a specific item of that budget, this doesn’t change. The leadership is still in control.

These gifts are restricted. Yet, leadership doesn’t lose any agency. The gift still fits with the leadership’s ego and power needs. However, this translates the budget for donors. The budget becomes a series of giving opportunities. It becomes a menu. Each accomplishes something specific. Each gift does good work.

George Barna’s study of effective church fundraising explains a similar approach,

“creatively segment your fund-raising efforts into ministry modules and then encourage people to ‘buy’ into one or more of those modules … relatively few people get turned on by throwing their comparatively limited donations into a giant ministry money pot.” 392

But what about the rest of the budget items? What about boring expenses? Some can be covered by other revenue. Some can be included as part of a specific program’s total cost. This works because the overall program is still visualizable and compelling. Bundling in the overhead costs changes the price, but it doesn’t hurt the story.

Donor “restrictions” need not originate with the donor. The charity can intentionally construct a menu of attractive options. It can present those options to the donor.

Indeed, Paul’s own fundraising campaign was for restricted giving. He was not raising funds for the church’s general budget. These gifts were for a specific designated use. They were to benefit poor Christians in the church in Jerusalem.

Now, suppose the donor wants to do good that is beyond the budget. What then? Again, we need to translate. We don’t present this as a power struggle between the leadership and the donor. That works against the leadership’s ego and power needs. Instead, we present it as a competition with other organizations. That works with the leadership’s ego and power needs. For example,

“The donor wants to fully fund a new outreach to the homeless. They’re considering giving another nonprofit the money to do this, but I would really like them to give it to us instead. What do you think? How should I advise the donor?”

Such framing can increase support for donor agency. But that can lead to another issue.

Doing good: Donor agency and mission drift

Donor agency works. It leads to large gifts. But it also leads to questions:

The answers are no, no, and no. At least they can be. Why? Let’s start at the beginning. This ministry is not just a way to get cash to the organization. It’s not a ministry to the organization. It’s not a ministry for the organization. It’s a ministry to the donor. It’s a ministry for the donor.

How does that help? Consider this. Suppose the donor wants to do good thing “X.” But our charity isn’t designed to deliver “X.” What’s the response? It’s this: Instruct the donor to do good. How? By giving money to our organization? No. That’s the wrong instrument. Instead, we encourage giving to another charity.

The point is to instruct the donor to do good.393 Our organization is just one tool for the donor to use. It’s not always the right tool. And that’s OK. It’s OK because the point of the ministry isn’t just getting cash for the organization. The point is to instruct the donor to do good.

In this ministry to the donor, the organization is just an instrument for the donor. It’s like a hammer for the donor to use. A tight mission focus helps the organization be the best hammer it can be. And, yes, we want the donor to pick up the hammer and use it. We want the donor to use it to do good.

But sometimes, the donor wants to do good that needs a screwdriver. Or a wrench. What do we do then? We instruct the donor to do good. We don’t try to get them to use our hammer as a wrench or a screwdriver. We point them to another tool. 394 Our ministry is not just to sell our hammer. Our ministry is to instruct the donor to do good.

This willingness to minister to the donor – not the organization – works. It not only works for the donor. It also works for the organization. It leads to larger gifts. When we stop selling the organization, we open up broader conversations about doing good. We get into discussions about wealth and philanthropic goals. We speak not to sell but to instruct and advise.

Doing good: What donor agency is not

In Paul’s message, the donor uses his wealth to do good. The donor uses it to buy work that accomplishes something. The donor has agency.

However, the donor’s agency applies only to his own wealth. He has no agency over other people’s money. This issue can sometimes arise in fundraising. A donor may want to take control of other people’s gifts. That’s not donor agency. It’s the opposite.

A donor may have an idea for a new project that’s not in the budget. That’s OK. But he only wants to fund 10% of it. That’s not OK. That’s not donor agency. That’s giving the donor control over other people’s gifts. That’s not this story.

The decision to use other people’s money isn’t part of the donor’s role. The donor gets to decide what he will do with his own money. If the donor wants to do this good work, that’s fine. But he must pay for the work. Otherwise, he can fund part of a project that is already in the budget.

Doing good: Abundance vs. scarcity in giving

This instruction “to do good” is special. This Greek word had appeared nowhere else in any writings, except in one place. In Acts 14:17, it describes God’s material blessings to us.395 In 1 Timothy 6:18, it describes our reciprocal material blessings to others. The link is clear. God’s doing good to us is the source of wealth (and all other things). Our doing good for others is the intended use of wealth (and all other things).

Giving doesn’t remove a piece from a limited pie. Instead, it’s part of a relationship of unlimited supply. The instruction “to do good” connects our giving to God’s rich supply. This is a message of abundance. Giving is part of an ongoing abundance partnership.

This theme is consistent and repeated. In Paul’s fundraising appeal letter, God will provide

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

And the donor

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

Scarcity giving is stressful. Whatever we give, we’ve lost forever. Abundance giving is joyful. It’s not stressful because there will always be more blessings where that came from! This abundance mindset is key to joyful giving. It’s also key to joyful – and effective – fundraising.

Doing good: Abundance vs. scarcity in fundraising

A scarcity mindset in fundraising sees a battle over fixed dollars. In this view, we would never advise a donor to give somewhere else. That means we lose. It means less money for our organization. We would never advise a donor to put instructions with their gift. That means fewer unrestricted dollars. It means less money for our plans. Again, we lose.

Scarcity fundraising is narrow and small. It fights for every penny. It fights against the donor’s gifts to other charities. It fights against donor instructions with their gifts. It pushes a simple sales message:

Give us money!

It has a simple goal:

Get the money!

This is “fund-raising” as “money-getting.”

Abundance fundraising is the opposite. It’s not about getting from the donor. It’s about ministering to the donor. The goal is not “money-getting.” The goal is donor enjoyment. The goal is joyful giving.

Is it more joyful for this donor to fund this particular element of a project? Then let’s do it! Make sure the donor puts those instructions with his gift! Is it more joyful for the donor to fund a project outside of our charity? Then encourage him to do that! Help him to do good elsewhere, too.

Why do we do these things? Because that’s the ministry. The ministry is to the donor. Also, because that’s the goal. The goal is the donor’s enjoyment of what God has richly provided.

And here is the simple reality. Abundance fundraising works. Providing value to the donor works. Focusing on donor enjoyment works. A beneficial, caring partnership – a ministry relationship – works.

The goal is to minister effectively to the donor. It’s about becoming the donor’s guiding sage in his personal philanthropic journey. It’s not about grabbing the cash. It’s about encouraging generosity wherever it brings joy to the donor.

This ministry approach leads to broader conversations. It leads to global conversations about the donor’s wealth. It leads to conversations about the most meaningful and enjoyable good works for that donor. These big, broad, beneficial conversations result in major life investment gifts.

Doing good: Abundance vs. scarcity in leadership

When organizational leadership promotes scarcity fundraising – it will get scarcity. When it promotes abundance fundraising – it will get abundance.

Scarcity fundraising focuses on shortages and impairment. It says,

“Give us money; we need it desperately.”

It generates small gifts. It leads to organizational “starvation cycles” and recurring crises.

Abundance fundraising focuses on strength and benefits. It says,

“We are your strong, stable, effective instrument of impact. Use us to do good! Use us to make your biggest, most enjoyable, impact! We can help you do good work that accomplishes something personally meaningful.”

Paul’s fundraising message works with some leadership mindsets. And it conflicts with others. This conflict arises in a variety of ways:

This abundance message is a challenge to the donor. It directs the donor to change his mindset about giving. But the abundance message can also be a challenge to the charity. It can require charity leaders to change their mindset about giving, too.

Embracing this message is powerful. It’s powerful because the message is true. In fundraising, the message works. It motivates major life investment gifts of wealth. For the donor who embraces it, it can lead to a life of abundance. For the charity that embraces it, it can do the same.