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.”

You’re one of us!

A key goal of this ministry is for the rich Christian to be koinōnikous. This version translates it, “to share,” but it means much more. It’s an adjective modifying the donor’s “I am” statement [einai]. It’s describing who the donor is being, not just what he is doing. The rich Christian joins together with the fellowship community – the koinōnia. This comes from being a sharer with the koinōnia. This is being koinōnikous.

Professor Don Dewelt explains koinōnikous in 1 Timothy 6:18 by writing that the goal is to

“feel a partnership with every other Christian.”523

The goal here is not just fundraising. It’s not just a charitable transfer. Instead, it’s a personal transformation. The rich Christians’ ongoing identity, einai, changes. They become fellowship community sharers.

This is partnership language. It’s community language. It’s family language. It’s emotional bonding language. It answers a core question:

“Do we belong together?”

Many will say the answer is no. The world may feel that rich Christians are above poor Christians. The ascetics will feel that rich Christians are less than poor Christians – especially the voluntarily poor Christians. In either case, these attitudes lead to separation. They lead to breaking community.

This is the opposite of koinōnikous. Koinōnikous connects with the koinōnia. It’s an active affirmation of belonging. It’s the donor saying, “I belong with you!” It’s the recipient-sharer saying, “You belong with us!” It’s the fellow donor saying, “You belong with us!” It’s the ministry worker saying, “You belong with us!” It’s the unified fellowship community saying, “We belong together!”

Community as the ministry goal

What’s the goal of fundraising? From a secular perspective, that’s simple. Fund = money. Raising = getting. The goal of fund-raising is money-getting.

What if we asked the same question of fundraisers for a Christian ministry? What if we asked,

“What’s the ministry goal of your fundraising?”

Their response will likely be all about various plans to spend the donor’s money. This “fund-raising” is still just “money-getting.” They need fund-raising because they need money. Why else would they engage in “money-getting” if not for the money?

Those ministry uses of money are fine. But that isn’t the goal of this ministry. In Greek, our passage begins with “To the rich” [Tois plousiois]. This isn’t a ministry to the organization. It’s not even a ministry to the beneficiaries. This is a ministry to the rich Christians.

And, what is our ministry goal for rich Christians? What do we want for them? We want them to enjoy their wealth. (That’s the purpose for which God gave it to them in the first place.) We want them to do good. We want them to be rich in good works. We want them to be good (ready-happy-abundance) sharers. And here, we want them to be deeply bonded fellowship-community members. We want them to be koinōnikous.

This last goal is important for all Christians. But it’s a special challenge for rich Christians. Being rich might make the first goals easier. Wealth can help them to do good. It can help them to be rich in good works. It can help them become sharers of abundance.

But wealth doesn’t always help with koinōnikous. In fact, wealth usually has the opposite effect. It can block them from bonding with the fellowship community. Wealth can separate. It can isolate.

Wealth and separation from community

Solomon writes,

“A rich person’s wealth is his strong city,

And like a high wall in his own imagination.” (Proverbs 18:11).

Wealth is like a high wall. That high wall can protect. But it can also separate. It can lead to isolation. Isaiah writes,

“Woe to you who add house to house and join field to field till no space is left and you live alone in the land.” (Isaiah 5:8 NIV).

Wealth can naturally lead to social isolation. We call the financial condition being “independently wealthy.” That sounds good at first. But independence also allows for disconnection. It enables isolation.

Wealth makes social separation easy, even convenient. Suppose we need help on a big project. What are our options? If we have no money, then we need friends. We need family. We’re forced to connect socially. Otherwise, the project is impossible.

But if we have money, we don’t need to connect. We can just write a check. We can pay other people to do what we need.

Using money this way is more convenient. It’s faster. It avoids having to pay back obligations when others are in need. When you’re rich, friendships aren’t mandatory. But this quick and easy solution has a problem. It can lead to social isolation.

Wealth can lead to isolation in other ways. Suppose a new person is friendly to you. They want to spend time with you. They want to build a relationship with you. How do you feel?

Now, let’s change one thing. You’re rich. This person knows you’re rich. Everyone knows you’re rich. Does this change how you might feel? Might it add any suspicion?

What if you’ve had previous experiences with others who behaved this same way? Ultimately, they ended up just wanting money. When that didn’t happen, their friendliness disappeared. Might this change how you feel? Might it add any suspicion? Wealth can make a person suspicious of others. It can lead to distrust.

So, what’s the solution to this isolation? A common option is to associate only with other rich people. You trust them because of their wealth. They aren’t being nice just because you have wealth, and they don’t. They already have wealth. They already have status. This allows for mutual community with less distrust.

Except there’s a problem. It’s a big problem. You can have community, but your community is contingent. It’s contingent upon your wealth. If your wealth disappears, so does your community. You would no longer qualify. You could no longer be trusted.

This makes your wealth holding even more desperate. A loss of money doesn’t just mean less consumption. It means a loss of community. The risk is not just scarcity. It’s also isolation.

Facing this peril leads to desperate behavior. Wealth must be tightly grasped. Its loss risks losing community. It risks losing standing. It risks losing identity.

These rich are in peril. They are in need. They have a ministry need. This need can be filled by being koinōnikous. It’s fulfilled by becoming a closely connected, fellowship-community sharer.

We belong together: Paul explains why

Being koinōnikous requires the shared belief that we all belong together. The rich person is one of us. Our passage explains why this is true. It does so with many arguments. It explains that wealth differences are not important. Why?

The message is clear. We belong together.

This sense of community is embedded even in the form of the instruction. Timothy is not to beg from below. (Begging from below matches with eleēmosynē, not koinōnikous.) He is not to attack from above. (The high-mindedness of the religious ascetic or class-conflict warrior is not welcome.) Instead, he is to parangelle. He is to come alongside, para, with an authorized message, angelle.

We belong together: Paul and James agree

The goal is koinōnikous. It’s sharing as a form of bonding together with the fellowship community. Understanding this helps explain why Paul’s ministry to the rich exactly matches James’s admonition in James 2:2-4.

James describes a scene. Two people enter the assembly. Immediately, they are split apart. Why? Because one of them looked rich and the other didn’t. The behavior has a clear message: “You don’t belong together!”

The poor person is directed to sit,

Or,

Paul directs a ministry to the rich. It’s a ministry of connection. It more strongly connects the rich person into the fellowship community. It doesn’t ignore the wealth differences. Instead, it puts them in their proper place.

These wealth differences are just temporary circumstances. They’re circumstances like being a poor widow, or a servant, or an older man, or a younger woman. Each set of circumstances results in special ministry needs. Each ministry comes with special instructions. But each ministry helps build a unified fellowship community.

Giving as fellowship participation

We can do fundraising wrong. How? Henri Nouwen explains,

“We also will be cut off from our donors, because we will find ourselves begging for money and they will find themselves merely handing us a check. No real connection has been created because we have not asked them to come and be with us. We have not given them an opportunity to participate in the spirit of what we are about. We may have completed a successful transaction, but we have not entered into a successful relationship.”525

Fellowship-community sharing creates joy

When giving connects us to a fellowship community, it’s not just giving away. It’s giving “with” or “among” others. (It’s not just dotous; it’s metadotous.) As one book on fundraising explains,

“Giving, no matter what the level, is a whole lot more enjoyable when done in community and with friends.”527

Building multiple fellowship communities

We can do the same things. We can build fellowship communities across multiple groups. We can connect donors to recipients. We can connect donors to donors. We can connect donors to charity leaders. How do we do this? There are many ways.

Gathering together works. Special events might help accomplish this. Advisory boards can, too. Getting people to visit can work. Getting donors to visit the ministry or outreach can be powerful. These are effective modern fundraising strategies. They’re also effective ancient fundraising strategies.

Perhaps nothing works better in fundraising than this simple directive: “Go see people.”529 In 2 Corinthians 8 & 9, we have Paul’s fundraising appeal letter. In Philippians 1 & 4, we have his gift acknowledgment letter. In fundraising parlance, these were both “direct mail” pieces. But notice something important. These weren’t stand-alone fundraising pieces. Each also referenced a forthcoming “personal visit.”

In his fundraising appeal letter, he sends Titus. He lets them know, explicitly, that Titus is going there as a fundraiser. He writes,

“So we have urged Titus, who encouraged your giving in the first place, to return to you and encourage you to finish this ministry of giving. (2 Corinthians 8:6 NLT).”

In his gift acknowledgment, he sends Timothy to the donor congregation. (Philippians 2:19). He also returns Epaphroditus. (Philippians 4:18). Epaphroditus was a member of the donors’ congregation. He had visited the ministry and worked alongside Paul. (Philippians 2:25). This made him an ideal fellowship-community connector.

How do we build community with donors? We gather them together. We write to them. We visit them. We have them visit us. This is what worked 2,000 years ago. It’s what still works today.

Community sharing works: Real world

The rich are instructed to use their wealth to “einai koinōnikous”. They’re to use their wealth to become closely connected, fellowship-community sharers.

Will writing a check do this? That depends. If the charity is offering fellowship-community connection to the donor, then yes. Otherwise, no. Without a partnership, there can be no partnership sharing. Without a neighborhood, there can be no “neighborliness.”530 Without a fellowship community, there can be no fellowship-community sharing. Without a koinōnia, there can be no koinōnikous.

This might feel like a great burden for the charity. After all, if fund-raising is just money-getting, this is a lot to do. It feels like a lot of extra effort. But here’s the thing. It works.

Consider this example. A dominant segment of major gift fundraising in the US is higher education. Traditional colleges build community intensively. Students live together on campus during their formative years. Alumni relive their experiences and renew community at games and reunion events.

What would happen to fundraising if we kept the college but removed the community? We know the answer. Community colleges offer the same classes but not the same community. Students just drive in and drive out.

The result? Community colleges serve nearly 50% of the nation’s college students. But they receive only 2% of charitable gifts to higher education.531 Even these few gifts rarely come from alumni. They’re largely from outside corporations and foundations. In fact, about half of these colleges conduct no alumni relations fundraising at all.532 All their fundraising looks to other sources. Without the community building of a traditional college, the giving disappears.

In our passage, wealthy Christians are to engage in fellowship-community sharing. In real-world practice, offering donor community to high-capacity donors works. It’s an effective fundraising strategy.

One analysis studied major donors to Bible translation. It reported,

“The most significant finding is that donors with the highest sense of involvement tended to give at the highest levels. Stated another way, those with the highest levels of giving reported the greatest levels of participation in the community of donors associated with the work of the [charity].”533

The key finding for ministry-related fundraising success was this:

“a primary focus should be to aggressively build programs that enhance a sense of community among major donors.”534

This applies to all causes, not just Christian ones. One study conducted in-depth interviews with a hundred wealthy donors. The resulting book was “Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy.” It explained,

“In short, the vast majority of the largest gifts were made to nonprofits with which donors had some involvement, and/or grew out of donors’ relationships with other people, who in turn usually had some involvement with the organization. This was true of over 90 percent of all gifts made to the areas of health, education, culture, and to churches or temples.”535

Large gifts aren’t simply given away. They’re shared. They’re shared with a fellowship community. Large gifts start with social connections. Whether secular or religious, they start with connections to a fellowship community.

Are you offering these things?

In 1 Timothy 6:18, the rich Christian is directed

“to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share”.

This is what they’re supposed to do.