Message 12: You’re being a good partner in a great partnership!

• Biblical fundraising offers beneficial reciprocity with God and the fellowship community.
• Ordinary fundraising asks for a disconnected one-way transfer to outsiders.

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.”

The almsgiving ask

Almsgiving is an isolated, one-way, vertical transfer. Almsgiving pairs with begging. Begging asks based only on the receiver’s need. It offers no benefit to the giver. In modern fundraising, the almsgiving ask might sound like this:

• “You should give money because others need it.”
• “You should give money because our good work shows that we deserve it.”
• “You should give money because you can.”
• “You should give money because you’re supposed to.”
• Notice what all these messages have in common. There’s no donor benefit. There’s no mutual sharing relationship. The donor becomes part of no community. There’s no reciprocity. There’s no reciprocal altruism.
• These messages aren’t wrong. But they are different. They’re for a different kind of gift. They can work for the “obligation” gift. They can work for the “pat on the head” gift. They can work for the “isn’t that nice for you people” gift. They can work for the pocket change gift from disposable income. They do not work for the major life investment gift from wealth.
• Charities can get good at delivering these “small gift” messages. They can spur simple altruism. They can inspire almsgiving [eleēmosynē]. They can even get good at begging, which naturally pairs with almsgiving.⁵³⁷
• But often, those same charities fail at major gift fundraising. They fail to inspire large gifts of wealth. They’re not doing something wrong. They’re doing something different.

It’s an offer, not an ask

• This passage is different. Yes, it encourages the donor to give. But this is not begging. It’s not simply an “ask.” Instead, it’s an offer.
• There is a difference. An offer promises benefit. An ask does not. An offer presents a “good deal.” It benefits the one who says yes. An ask benefits only the receiver, not the giver.
• This passage gives an impressive list of donor benefits. Some are from God. Some are from the fellowship community. Some are from the donation experience itself.
• They enjoy their wealth. (“for enjoyment”)
• They make a real difference for good in a way that is personally meaningful to them. (“to do good”)
• They obtain the status of one who brings great beauty into the world. (“to be rich in [beautiful] good works”)
• They enjoy an internal and external identity as a good sharer. (“to be generous”)
• They fulfill the mutual social norm of sharing within a caring, concerned, and reciprocal fellowship community family. (“and ready to share”)
• They are freed to enjoy doing good today because God will be supplying more tomorrow. (“God, who richly supplies us”)
• They respond like a good partner to God’s rich provision in a way that imitates and pleases Him. (“God, who richly supplies us … to do good”)
• They are “storing up for themselves the treasure” of future benefits.
• They make a lasting impact. (“a good foundation for the future”)
• They experience an enriched life both now and later. (“so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.”)
• Donors experience these benefits right now. They also experience them in the future. It all adds up to the best deal ever. This is a message of donor benefit. It’s a message of massive donor benefit. These are benefits of many kinds, in many ways, from many sources.
• The goal is not just to make a compelling ask. It’s to make an attractive offer. Understanding this changes things. This goal is different. We actually want to provide value to the donor. We do everything we can to deliver this scriptural donor experience. The goal is not to have donors; it’s to have joyful donors. We work to provide a donation experience that is worth the gift.
• When this becomes our goal, it makes us a valuable partner for the donor. We become a means or instrument for them to accomplish these scriptural goals. We deliver real value.

It’s an offer of beneficial partnership

• This passage encourages giving. It does so with many arguments. But each is part of the same framework. Each is about partnership reciprocity. Each says, give because
• You’re a good (reciprocating) partner.
• You’re in a great (beneficial) partnership.
• This is a message about reciprocal partnership. It’s a message about partnership values and partnership benefits. It’s a different kind of fundraising message. It requires a different kind of fundraising behavior.
• This is fundraising that cares about building beneficial partnerships. It’s fundraising that cares about upholding partnership values. It’s fundraising that cares about delivering partnership benefits.

Making this argument to give might feel easy. But this isn’t just an ask. It’s an offer. It’s an offer of a beneficial partnership. A valid offer requires delivering the promised result. Offering a beneficial partnership means delivering partnership benefits. It means honoring partnership values. It means being a good partner.

Without reciprocity, there’s no partnership

Some charities fail to offer beneficial partnerships. Many aren’t even trying. For some, these goals don’t even make sense. They might call their donors “partners.” But their actual view of the donor “relationship” is this:

“They give us money. We use it. That’s the ‘partnership.’ Their job is to give. Our job is just to be our wonderful selves. If we keep reminding them how wonderful we are, they’re supposed to keep giving us their money.”

Does that sound like an attractive partnership? Would you want to be in a relationship with someone who felt this way about you? This isn’t an attractive offer. It’s not actually describing a partnership. A partnership without reciprocity is not really a partnership.

Yes, it’s important for charities to use money wisely. It’s important for them to be effective. But, for this ministry, it’s important as part of delivering the scriptural donor experience. It’s important as part of donors feeling that they have done good. It’s important as part of donors feeling that they are rich in good works.

Suppose a charity is doing great work. That’s fine. But that, by itself, doesn’t make a donor feel that he has done good. That, by itself, doesn’t make the donor feel rich in good works. The donor’s simple question is this:

• “I gave. What changed because of my gift?”

For many charities, the answer might be

• “We have no idea.”
• “There’s no way to measure that.”
• “Nothing.”
• “It’s complicated.”
• “That’s irrelevant. (The point is what we, as an organization, accomplish. It’s not about what your one gift accomplishes.)”

These answers may be logical. But they don’t work. They provide no reason to ever give again. They don’t make the donor feel that he has done good. They don’t make the donor feel that he is rich in good works. They don’t deliver the 1 Timothy 6:18 donor experience. They don’t deliver an experience the donor will want to repeat.

Of course, delivering this experience takes work. It requires a desire to benefit the donor. It’s the payback part of a reciprocal partnership.

• This passage has a message that motivates giving. It motivates giving by appealing to partnership values and partnership benefits. Treating “partners” with no reciprocity violates these rules. Treating them with “transactional” reciprocity does too. These contradict the message. They contradict the appeal to partnership values and partnership benefits.

Fundraising without partnership benefits stays small

• Are we offering donors a beneficial partnership? Are we even trying? This issue often divides small gift fundraising from big gift fundraising.
• Small gift messages are often about simple altruism or almsgiving. They may focus on need or guilt. They may focus on the charity’s great work. But they don’t motivate with partnership values or benefits.
• In these messages there is no donor benefit. There is no beneficial partnership. These are asks, not offers. This approach keeps gifts small. It does so in two ways.
• First, it can demotivate major gifts. If a gift doesn’t do something specific, then a small one works just as well. If anything helps, then anything is enough. If I give from guilt, then giving is still painful. I’ll stop it as soon as I can. These are small gift messages. They don’t lead to major life investment gifts.
• Second, it can demotivate major gift fundraising. Suppose a charity just wants the donor’s money. They’re not trying to offer anything in return. They’re not trying to build beneficial partnerships. They’re certainly not providing a ministry to the donors.
• How, then, does the charity view fundraising? It views fundraising as a burden on donors. It views giving as something done “reluctantly or under compulsion.”⁵³⁸ It’s unpleasant but, alas, necessary.
• Consider the effect of these attitudes on fundraising. What effect might these have on asking “big” instead of asking “small”? What effect might they have on spending resources on fundraising?
• If giving is a burden, the nicest thing we can do for donors is to reduce that burden. We can ask less. We can ask smaller. We can try to find alternative funding. We can ask only when we have no other options. We can ask as little as possible and as seldom as possible. This negative view of fundraising leads to weak results.
• Now, let’s flip the script. What if we were offering donors a great deal? What if we were offering them a donor experience that was worth their gift? What if they got to feel that they had done good? What if they got to feel rich in good works? What if, by giving, they were able to join in a shared fellowship community? What if we were offering them the absolute best way to enjoy their wealth? What if we were ministering to them through fundraising?
• What effect might this have on fundraising? How might it change asking “big” instead of asking “small”? How might it change spending resources on fundraising?
• This is a different world. It’s not the world of begging. It’s not the world of simple altruism. It’s the world of the attractive offer. It’s the world of the beneficial partnership. It’s the scriptural ministry of major gift fundraising.

Partnership values

• The passage shows that the rich person is being a good partner. He is fulfilling partnership values. This means
• Not being disconnected from or ignoring your partners
• He is not “high-minded” or separated from the community. He has set his hope in God.
• Not being self-focused
• He is not conceited. He has not set his hope on his riches but on God.
• Not feeling self-sufficient so that you don’t need anyone else
• Again, he is not “high-minded” or separated from the community. He has not set his hope on his riches but on God.
• Not being ungrateful
• He recognizes that it all comes from God. God richly supplies us with all things.
• Not violating a partner’s trust
• He is not violating God’s trust placed in him by richly providing wealth. He is not violating the fellowship community’s social norm of generously sharing from whatever God has richly supplied to them.
• Showing care for your partner
• He is a generous sharer within the fellowship community.
• Showing care for what your partner wants
• He is using wealth in the way that God would want.

Violating partnership values

• Why do charities fail at major gift fundraising? Often, it’s because they violate these same partnership values. Such a partnership is not attractive to donors. It rarely lasts.
• In the real world, this looks different from different perspectives. Charity administrators may see it one way. Donors see it another. Let’s consider both views:
• Being disconnected from or ignoring your partner
• Donor: “I gave but no one has called, written, or visited.”
• Administrator: “The donor’s job is to provide resources for our ministry. Our job is to use that money wisely to accomplish our goals. Spending time on communications that don’t ask for money isn’t our job. It’s inefficient.”
• Being self-focused
• Donor: “They talk about how great they are, but I’m not sure how my gift changed anything.”
• Administrator: “We’re the best in the world at this mission. I think that’s why donors give. They see our track record. They see our vision. They fund our vision. What one gift does is irrelevant. What we accomplish as an organization is the only thing that matters.”
• Feeling self-sufficient so that you don’t need anyone else
• Donor: “They’ve already decided what they’re doing. They’re certainly not interested in my input.”
• Administrator: “We are the experts. We know the best way to do this work. If we do good work, the money will come. People will give because they’ll see what we’ve accomplished.”
• Being ungrateful
• Donor: “I gave. I got a receipt. That was the end of it.”
• Administrator: “Donors give because we’ve earned their gifts through our excellent work. No one deserves their support more than we do. We use their money efficiently. We don’t waste it on donor ‘experiences’ or ‘relationship building.’”
• Violating a partner’s trust
• Donor: “They said they were going to do this with the money, but that’s not what happened.”
• Administrator: “We’re making the decisions, not the donor. We’re the experts. We do what’s best for accomplishing this mission.”
• Donor: “Their appeal letters call us ‘friends.’ But when we wanted to visit, they acted as if it was such a burden. And then they charged us $20 for parking!”
• Administrator: “The donor’s job is to fund the ministry. Donors who want to take up extra time or get special treatment are giving for the wrong reasons. They can pay for those things if they want them.”
• Not showing care for your partner
• Donor: “I only hear from them when they want money.”
• Administrator: “It’s simple. Their role is to give money. Our role is to use that money to do our work. Our ministry is not with the donors. We just want their money.”
• Not showing care for what your partner wants
• Donor: “I would like to make a gift with a lasting impact. Maybe a permanent scholarship for _____. Maybe endowing the salary of a worker dedicated to ____. Maybe funding a building project for ____.”
• Administrator: “We don’t allow gift restrictions. We’re the ones who create the plans. We’re the experts here, not the donors. Just because people write checks doesn’t mean they get to decide. We’re in control, not them.”
• These administrator perspectives are a problem. The problem is not that the arguments are wrong. The problem is that they don’t work. They don’t work for major gift fundraising. They violate partnership values. They conflict with the offer of a beneficial partnership.

Partnership reciprocity: Do you want to?

• The ministry of major gift fundraising is powerful. The offer of a beneficial partnership is attractive. Charities can make such an offer. But often, they won’t. The barrier is not external. It’s internal. The biggest hurdle is answering, “Do you want to?” In other words,
• Do you want to deliver a donor experience that is truly the best way for them to enjoy their wealth?
• Do you want to deliver a donor experience that makes them feel that they have done good?
• Do you want to deliver a donor experience that makes them feel that they have become rich in good works?
• Do you want to deliver a donor experience that strongly connects them with a mutually reciprocal fellowship community?
• Do you want to come alongside this group to deliver this scripturally authorized ministry?
• If the answer is yes, the rest will follow. The remaining challenges are merely tactical. Once the destination is set, the path becomes clear.

Partnership reciprocity: Yes, you can!

• Suppose you say yes. You want to deliver this ministry. You want to deliver this donor experience. You want their experience to match this passage. But maybe you feel like you can’t. Maybe you feel that your situation is different. You might object,
• “This doesn’t apply to me. I’m not raising money for the local church. I’m raising money for the homeless. (Or maybe it’s international missions.) My donors aren’t part of the recipient community. I can’t ask them to ‘share.’ I can only ask them to ‘give away.’”
• Now what? Can you still ask donors to “share” instead of “give away”? Yes.
• Suppose a donor gives to relieve homelessness in their community. Do they benefit from living in a community without homelessness? Yes. That makes it a nicer place to live. So, is the donor also part of the recipient community? Yes. Can the donor share together within a fellowship community of other donors? Yes. Together, they share. Together, they benefit from the improved community. This is a beneficial partnership.
• But maybe the money isn’t staying local. Maybe it’s going to another country. Certainly, that eliminates sharing, right? Not necessarily.
• In 2 Corinthians 8:13-14, Paul details the idea of sharing (i.e., reciprocal altruism). He contrasts it with simple giving (i.e., altruism).⁵³⁹ He does so as part of a fundraising appeal letter. It was an appeal to send money to another country. And yet, it was still a message about sharing. It was still a message of donor benefit. You are helping them today. They could help you tomorrow. Or, as Paul describes it,
• “Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal.” (2 Corinthians 8:14 NLT).
• Can we be part of the beneficiary community for international missions? Yes. Today, they need someone to share the gospel message. So, we send missionaries to their land. Perhaps tomorrow, we will be in need. If the gospel message flourishes in their land, they may return the favor. They may send missionaries to us. Or if we become exiles, we may have a foreign place of refuge. Today, we benefit the foreign fellowship community. Tomorrow, our fellowship community may benefit from them.
• Those donor benefits would be available in the future. Other donor benefits start right away. The recipients can be good (reciprocal) partners. In Paul’s example, they will offer “prayer on your behalf.” These are not transactional partners; they’re family partners. Thus, they will “yearn for you.”⁵⁴⁰
• These are good partners. They do not ignore the gift or the giver. Instead, they respond with gratitude. This is not just gratitude for the gift. This is gratitude for the donor. It’s gratitude for who the donor is being. They will “yearn for you because of the surpassing grace of God in you.”⁵⁴¹ They will “glorify God for your obedience to your confession.”⁵⁴²
• The point is this. Whatever our cause, we can find a way to deliver these results. We can deliver a donor experience that matches this passage.

The destination guides the journey

• Knowing where we want to go helps. It guides us to the right paths. Our goal includes a specific donor experience. This passage describes it. Understanding this goal answers many questions.
• Consider this example. Should we host that next donor event? The answer is, “It depends.” Will it help us accomplish our scriptural goals? For example:
• Will we use it to “come alongside” high-capacity donors? Will it lead to instructing them to share generously? Will it lead to an offer to do so?
• Will it help donors to feel that they have done good?
• Will it help donors to feel that they are rich in good works?
• Will it help donors connect with others who also generously share what God has blessed them with?
• Will it help donors feel part of a beneficial fellowship community?
• If these answers are yes, then the event fits. Otherwise, it doesn’t. The destination guides the journey.
• Knowing the destination also gives guidance for other issues. For example, should donors pay for their tickets? A CFO might like that transactional result. It creates a small financial win. But does it move towards our destination? Does it match with a beneficial social partnership? Does it promote sharing within a family relationship?
• Suppose we invite a friend to a New Year’s Eve party at our house. That says something positive about the relationship. Now, suppose we tell him there’s a $50 cover charge at the door. That says something quite different about the relationship!
• Would we say this to a friend? No. Would we do this with a family member? Of course not! Should we do this with a major gift donor? The answer may be the same. This doesn’t mean a paid event is a bad idea. It may just match a different kind of relationship.
• The point is this. Once we answer yes to these goals, everything else follows naturally. The right and wrong moves become obvious.

It’s your choice

• This passage describes a donor experience. It describes beneficial partnerships. A charity – any charity – can choose to make that offer. It can choose to be part of a beneficial partnership. It can offer reciprocal altruism. But it all starts by answering, “Do you want to?” For example,
• Do you want to deliver this donor experience?
• Do you want to be a good (beneficial) partner with your donors?
• Do you want to uphold partnership values?
• Do you want to provide partnership benefits?
• For many charities, the answer is “No.” They’re content to stick with the small gift message. They prefer to focus only on their needs. Or the donor’s obligations. Or how wonderful their charity is.
• But a charity – any charity – can decide to answer “Yes!” It can focus on offering beneficial partnerships. It can provide a donor experience that is worth the gift. It can make the donors feel that they are doing good. It can make them feel that they are becoming rich in good works. It can build a mutually beneficial community of fellow donors. It can deliver this ministry of major gift fundraising.