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

The Fundraiser as Art Dealer

Beautiful good works

Timothy is to instruct the donor

“to do good, to be rich in good works” (1 Timothy 6:18b).

In English this repeats “good.” In Greek, these are two different words. The first “good” [agatho-] is intrinsically good. The second “good” [kalois] is,

“beautiful, as an outward sign of the inward good, noble, honorable character; good, worthy, honorable, noble, and seen to be so.”396

These good works are beautiful, noble, and honorable. Another lexicon describes the word as,

“attractively good; good that inspires (motivates) others to embrace what is lovely (beautiful, praiseworthy); i.e., well done so as to be winsome (appealing).”397

One translation puts this phrase as

“to be rich in lovely works”.398

This is not just good in the intrinsic, analytical sense. It’s aesthetically good. It beautifully good. This type of giving is not primarily focused on technical efficiency, wealth redistribution, or almsgiving. This is something different. This is about bringing beauty into the world. It’s about bringing something noble and inspirational into the world.

Art dealer: The intermediary selling beautiful works

The donor is “to be rich in good works”. The donor becomes a collector of beautiful works. What is the fundraiser’s role? The fundraiser presents the donor with potential additions to his collection of beautiful works. The donor might purchase ready-made beautiful good works. He might fund new custom-made beautiful good works. Either way, the donor’s collection of beautiful good works grows.

The fundraiser is encouraging the donor to buy beautiful works. In a sense, he is selling works of beauty or “art.” The fundraiser is like an art dealer. An art dealer,

“acts as the intermediary between the buyers and sellers of art.”399

The fundraiser is this same kind of intermediary. He stands between the charity that creates beautiful works and the donor who can fund those works. This analogy provides a useful perspective for effective fundraising.

The donor is the owner

The fundraiser is encouraging the donor to buy beautiful works. This collection of good works becomes the donor’s collection. The donor becomes rich in good works. This requires a transfer of ownership.

An artist can paint a picture, but he can’t sell it without giving up ownership. Suppose you walk into an art gallery. It displays many beautiful, attractive paintings by its featured artist. You point to a favorite and ask,

“How much?”

The salesperson explains,

“Oh, you can’t buy anything. The artist never gives up ownership. But you can leave your money. It will fund his new works.”

You reply,

“And then I would get the new work that I funded?”

The response is,

“No. The artist never gives up ownership. But you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing you helped him do his work.”

How much art could you sell that way? Probably very little. And yet, fundraising often communicates the same idea. The messages don’t give ownership of the good works to the donor. These are the organization’s good works – not the donor’s. Paul’s message is different. The donors themselves become “rich in good works.”

Many charities do beautiful good deeds. Ask any charity leader. Likely, you’ll hear many examples. But notice what’s different. Their stories will convey how the organization is rich in these good deeds. That’s not Paul’s message.

Charity leaders want to do good work. But they think of it only as their good work – not the donors’ good works. In Paul’s message, it is not the organizational leader who becomes rich in good deeds. It is not the minister who becomes rich in good deeds. It is the donor who becomes rich in good deeds.

The charity is the donor’s instrument

In fundraising, it’s important to sell a beautiful work. It’s also important to deliver ownership of it. A donor gives. But what if nothing makes him feel like he owns the beautiful, good work? What if nothing makes him feel like he is responsible for the beautiful, good work? Then he can’t become rich in beautiful, good works. The beautiful work doesn’t get placed in his collection.

In the major gift fundraising story, the charity is still important. But it’s important as the donor’s instrument of impact. The charity is powerful. But it’s powerful as the donor’s magical weapon. It’s powerful like the hammer of Thor. The hammer isn’t the hero. The hammer is the hero’s instrument of impact. In fundraising, the charity is the hammer. The donor is the one who swings the hammer.

Small gifts go to an organization. Major gifts go through an organization. As one book explains it,

“Donors don’t give to you. Donors rarely give to your institution. They give to the hope made real in their gift. If it is a scholarship fund, they are giving to change the life of a future student. If they give to your research program, they are giving to the families spending more time with a loved one cured of a disease. If they donate land for conservation, they are embracing the joy of future generations enjoying nature. When they choose to give to you, they have decided you are a vehicle for this future hope and realized satisfaction.”400

Large gifts are given through a charity, not to a charity. The organization is the donor’s weapon of impact. It’s an instrument the donor uses. The donor uses it to create beautiful good works.

Major gift fundraising is not a weakest-link system. It’s not giving to organizations with the greatest need. It’s a strongest-link system. These donors “give to the best.”401 They use the most powerful instrument of impact.

The successful art collector doesn’t commission the artist who is in the most desperate need. He hires the artist who can produce the most beautiful works to add to his collection. No one gives money to Harvard because it needs money. They give because it’s the right instrument of impact for their philanthropic goals.

The data reflect this. The largest donations go to the largest – often the wealthiest – organizations. And, it makes sense. These donors are using the most stable, reliable, lasting tools to accomplish their personal philanthropic goals.

The rich person’s art collection

Throughout the centuries, a common characteristic of the rich has been spending money on art collections. The art collector becomes rich in beautiful works. This historical practice illuminates Paul’s phrase in several ways.

Although the buyer doesn’t personally create the works, they become his.402 The works belong to the collector. Beyond this, a rich person would often fund work in the role of patron. Historically, a patron would commission art to his, often exacting, specifications.403 He would not just buy his collection. He would “create” it.

The artist did not just sell works of art; he would follow the patron’s instructions. Often, he would even incorporate the patron into the art itself. (This was done through inscriptions or painting the patron into a scene.404)

Art collecting among the rich is not just a historical phenomenon. J. Paul Getty, the world’s richest person at the time, wrote a book on “How to be rich.”405 In it, he emphasizes the responsibility of collecting art and patronizing the arts.

Private art collections can display wealth and good taste. The discerning, wealthy collector can become rich in beautiful works. Paul here uses similar language. The donor becomes rich in beautiful-noble-good [kalois] works. He becomes a collector. Over time, his collection of beautiful works grows. The donor becomes rich in beautiful works.

The myth of donor fatigue

In fundraising, you may hear the phrase “donor fatigue.” This comes from the mindset that giving is a burden. In this view, the giving experience is not “worth” the gift. Fundraising is unpleasant but, alas, necessary. So, it’s important not to bring up giving too often. Otherwise, it will cause donor fatigue.

Now, let’s reverse that. Suppose the giving experience is enjoyable. Suppose it’s actually worth the cost of the gift. Suppose it allows donors to actually do something good. Suppose it makes them feel rich in beautiful good works. Suppose it makes them feel generous and part of a fellowship community. Let’s get even more extreme. Suppose it even allows donors to take hold of that which is truly life.

This is a great deal for donors. So, is it fatiguing? Of course not. It’s not exhausting. It’s enjoyable. Fundraisers may talk of donor fatigue. But have you ever heard someone talk of Amazon fatigue? Have you ever heard people say,

“I hope Amazon and Wal-Mart quit offering all those products for sale! I’m just so tired of getting more stuff.”

Probably not. Why not? Because when we shop, we only buy things that are worth the price (or at least appear to be so). They’re a good deal. Otherwise, we wouldn’t buy them.

The art collection is plural

Shopping is attractive when the products are worth the price. It’s even more attractive when there are so many choices. Even if we intend to get only one thing, we come out with a basketful.

In 1 Timothy 6:18, the donor’s collection of beautiful works is plural. They don’t just have one. They have many. They have so many that they are rich in them.

If giving is truly a good deal for donors, is it fatiguing? No. Instead, it’s enjoyable. It’s fun. It’s even a little addictive.

So suppose we’re offering an addictive product. Let’s say it’s something safe, like caffeine. How do we increase consumption of it? We offer it in a hundred different ways. We offer it in coffee, tea, sodas, chocolate, and energy drinks.

If we are offering a giving experience that is worth the gift, then we are offering a good deal. We are offering an enjoyable experience. How do we increase consumption of it? We offer it in a hundred different ways. We help the donor to build a large and varied collection of many beautiful works.

This has practical implications for real-world fundraising. Joshua Birkholz’s team works with the largest health and education nonprofits in the country. He explains the results of a research study:

“We studied the effect not only of multiple [gift] designations, but also multiple approaches. We analyzed prospects pursued only by one major gift officer. We compared these to prospects pursued by fundraisers from different areas of the organizations (different colleges of the university, different service areas in healthcare, etc.) … Not only did the donors give more overall when compared to single-pursuit donors, they gave more to the first area of interest.”406

These donors experienced a greater variety of offers from a greater variety of fundraisers at the nonprofit. The result was not fatigue. It was an increase in giving. It was an increase in overall giving. It was even an increase in giving in their initial area of interest.

A more technical research study showed similar results.407 It analyzed 20 years of donations at a large university. It compared donors with the same total level of past giving. It found that those who had given to a larger number of different projects or parts of the university were more likely to

This matches the idea of the donors as collectors of beautiful good works. Which collectors are the most passionate about getting the next item? It’s often those who have already built large and varied collections.

We want the donor’s collection of beautiful good works to be plural. We want them to collect as many as possible. We want them to be rich in their collection. This doesn’t cause collector fatigue. It doesn’t cause donor fatigue. It only increases the desire to add to their rich collection of beautiful good works.

Part II

Beautiful Works Are Visible and Compelling

Aesthetics vs. analytics

Paul’s language provides insight into major gift motivation. The donor is “to be rich in good [kalois] works.” This word for good is special. It’s “beauty on display.”409 It’s “aesthetically good, beautiful, good to men’s eyes.”410 Paul’s phrase refers to “good works that are bright and beautiful.”411

The fundraiser is selling beautiful works. This means the donor must be able to see or imagine the work. It must be “visualizable.” It also means something else. What the donor sees must be inspiring. It must be noble, honorable, and beautiful.412

Numbers, spreadsheets, and statistical efficiency are fine. But that’s not what inspires large gifts of wealth. What inspires large gifts of wealth is a beautiful vision. A complicated story won’t create this. It’s too hard to visualize. If the donor can’t visualize the result of his gift, the proposal won’t be motivational.

The vision of the work the donor is buying must be clear. And that clear vision must also be attractive. This is an aesthetic issue, not an analytical one. One experiment demonstrated this in an interesting way. It asked people about donating to an environmental cause. It described the threat as

“fertility loss due to pollution threatens ___ on the Mexican coast”.413

The share of people willing to donate was

Turtles are reptiles. But turtles make a more attractive picture than reptiles. Lizards are also reptiles. But lizards make a less attractive picture than turtles. When the vision became more beautiful, the willingness to donate doubled. Analytically, this doesn’t make sense. Aesthetically, it does. Selling a beautiful impact – a beautiful outcome – works.

Giving comes from vision in experiments

Scripture describes giving as accumulating visible, beautiful, good works. What does experimental science say? Where does charitable giving start? It starts with vision. This is not the leadership buzzword. It’s actual, physical, neurological visualization.

Several experiments demonstrate this. In one, people could give money to another person. When they could actually see the other person, the average gift size doubled.414

In another experiment, one group was asked to donate for a child in medical need. 61% gave. Another group was asked the same thing. But they also received the child’s name, age, and picture. In that group, 90% gave.415

In another example, people could donate for an at-risk child in Africa. One group also received the child’s name and picture. This doubled the willingness to donate.416 That’s no surprise. But this experiment then went further. It dove deeper into the decision-making process. It asked detailed questions. It applied statistical path analysis to uncover the decision sequence. The process was this:

STEP 1: Adding character details increased the clarity of the mental image.

STEP 2: This enhanced image increased sympathy.

STEP 3: This increased sympathy drove greater donations.

The mental sequence was:

Character details417 → Mental Image → Victim-focused emotion (Sympathy) → Donation

Creating a clear mental image leads to greater donations. This is true whether we’re raising money for kids, construction, or concepts. Before donors feel something, they must see something.

Giving comes from clear, simple vision

In The Storytelling Fundraiser, I summarized the latest research on effective fundraising. The results came down to this simple concept. Effective fundraising story

The ability to do these two things is why story can be so powerful. As a matter of science, story does this better than other kinds of text. It creates more internal visual representations.418

Of course, not all stories accomplish these goals. Not all stories work. Why not? One famous Hollywood scriptwriter gives a simple answer. He advises hundreds of storytellers and business leaders. And he keeps seeing the same problem with their stories. Their number one problem is this:

“Their stories are way too complicated.”419

Complexity won’t evoke a clear image. Without that clear image, the story can’t be compelling.

Fundraising starts with a clear image. Without a clear image, it can’t create social emotion. Without social emotion, fundraising won’t work. Complexity can’t evoke a clear image. That’s why complexity kills fundraising.

We see this in fundraising experiments. The story of one child in need is compelling. Donations will be high. A story about five children is more complicated to visualize. On average, donations will fall by about half.420 A story about thousands is even harder to visualize. Donations will fall even further.421

Analytically, this doesn’t make sense. Aesthetically, it does. As numbers increase, the picture gets fuzzy. It gets complicated. Researchers explain,

“As the number of victims increases, the mental representation becomes more diffuse and abstract until it is difficult to attach emotional meaning to it.”422

A complicated story can’t create social emotion. Neither can a vague one. These don’t work because they don’t trigger visualization. Without visualization, giving will be weak.

This also applies to giving in the church. One in-depth study of church giving explained,

“it is important to hear that … children in Africa are being vaccinated or a specific missionary is working in a specific place, rather than simply that the church is supporting a lot of good ministries. Thus, many parishioners said they like the church to be specific about what the money is being requested for.”423

This also applies to complex gifts. Gift structures in the US can get complicated. They can involve trusts, foundations, income taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, income streams, and even a four-tiered accounting system. But complexity still kills fundraising.

Even with these structures, what works in experiments are simple words and stories. More technical, contract language reduces interest in such giving structures. Simpler, social language increases that interest.424

Giving comes from visible gifts and visible impact

Charitable giving starts with vision. We can see it in fundraising experiments. We can see it in fundraising practice.

The key donor questions are about vision. Can I see the impact of my gift? Can others see the impact of my gift? If the answer is no, then making the gift didn’t create a visibly good work. It didn’t match Paul’s language. It wasn’t a visibly-beautiful good [kalois] work. This ancient phrase summarizes much of what we know from modern experimental research.

A 2023 study statistically summarized 1,339 published charitable giving experiments. These included over 2.1 million participants. What were the bottom-line findings? The authors explained,

“The most robust evidence found suggests charities could increase donations by

(1) emphasizing individual beneficiaries,

(2) increasing the visibility of donations,

(3) describing the impact of the donation, and

(4) enacting or promoting tax-deductibility of the charity.”425

The first three results were all about vision.

(1) Individual beneficiaries worked better. Why? Because they’re easier to picture. We can visualize a person. We can’t see a statistic in the same way.

(2) Increasing the visibility of donations by others worked, too.

(3) Describing the impact also worked. This makes the impact more visualizable.

So, what do we know from modern science? What do we know from 1,339 studies? We know that effective fundraising is all about vision. It’s about the visibility of the gift. It’s about the visibility of the impact. It’s about visibly good works. In ancient terms, it’s about kalois works.

The beautiful works creation experience

In the language of the passage, the donor not only buys a beautiful work. He brings it into being. He creates it.426 This experience of creation makes the giving attractive. One commentary describes the 1 Timothy 6:17-19 process this way,

This is a feeling of creation. This feeling of creation makes the gift attractive. Without it, the gift isn’t as compelling.

A common donor question is

“I made a gift. What changed?”

Or,

“I made a gift. What happened as a result?”

Suppose the donor receives no report of the impact from his particular gift. He receives no confirmation that he successfully brought beauty into the world. In that case, the gift won’t really add to his collection of beautiful, visible, good works. It doesn’t help him grow rich in these beautiful works. He can still give, but it won’t match Paul’s instructions.

What’s the point?

What opportunity are we offering to rich Christians? Are we offering the opportunity for them to do intrinsically good work? Are we offering the opportunity for them to become rich in visibly good works?

If not, then they shouldn’t share their wealth with our organizations. They’re not supposed to. They’re not instructed to simply give their wealth away. They’re instructed first to do intrinsically good work. They’re instructed next to become rich in visibly-beautiful good works.

Offering this donor experience takes more effort. It’s easier not to link outcomes with specific gifts. It’s easier not to allow restricted gifts. But this misses the point. The point is not administrative ease. The point is joyful donors.

For a typical administrator, it’s easy to miss the point. Their reaction might be something like,

“Oh, that’s a hassle. What an accounting pain! No, let’s skip all that. We should allow unrestricted gifts only.”

What causes this response? What’s the motivation? Is it because this makes giving more enjoyable? No. Is it because it makes giving more fun? No. Is it because it maximizes donor joy? No.

The point of that approach is administrative ease. If that’s the goal, then we wouldn’t do any of this. We wouldn’t worry about reporting a gift’s impact. We wouldn’t allow any gift instructions. But if the point is donor joy, then we should do it. We should make our donors feel rich in visibly good works.

It’s not easy. It requires work. It requires creativity. It may even require a more modest ego. That’s often how ministry is – even a ministry to the rich.

Let me encourage you to try it. Test it out. Seek first to deliver this donor experience to rich Christians. Give them a chance to feel rich in visibly good works. You’ll be amazed at how all the things of external fundraising success will be added to you!