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.

Paul’s endowment language

The donor’s giving has a result. The result is

“storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future” (1 Timothy 6:18a).

A deeper dive into the words reveals this idea:

The donor’s giving results in [apo-] a heap or store of accumulated riches [thēsaurizontas] used for a financial fund [themelion] that does good [kalon]. This good is publicly visible. It’s also personal; it reflects the giver’s good internal character. The fund attaches to and promotes [heautois] the donor. It is lasting. The fund is for the purpose of [eis] the future [to mellon].

Here, Paul is using endowment language.543 He’s using the language of the charitable foundation. This isn’t accidental. He was writing to Timothy in Ephesus. This was a major banking center. Many charitable endowments were held and managed there. They were even etched into the architecture. The recognition of such endowments would have surrounded those in Timothy’s congregation. At that time, endowments and foundations were highly popular. This was how rich people gave.

An answered question

This passage is about motivating wealth sharing by the wealth holders. This isn’t just about giving. It’s about giving big. Really big.

So, what’s the secret? What leads to these really big gifts? What elicits charitable wealth sharing by the wealthy? This isn’t a secret. It’s an answered question. It’s a solved puzzle.

We know the answer. And the answer is this. Major gifts of wealth are motivated by the features of endowments. (This includes foundations, which are stand-alone endowments.) These elements motivate large charitable transfers of wealth.

Consider the statistics. For estates over $5 million, only 22% of charitable bequest dollars went to public charities.544 Everything else went to private family foundations.

In lifetime giving, the results are similar. Two-thirds of the largest gifts to education funded endowments.545 A British study looked at all donations over £1 Million. Over two-thirds went to universities that hold large endowments or foundations that are large endowments.546 In a typical year in the US, nine of the ten largest charitable gifts in the country went to such entities.547

This is what the largest gifts look like. We might love endowments and foundations. We might hate them. We can argue about that. But what we can’t dispute is that they work. They work to motivate wealth sharing by wealth holders.

In fact, this is the whole reason the law allows them. One law professor writes,

“Laws enforce perpetual funds for charity because to do otherwise would discourage gifts.”548

The law doesn’t allow perpetual funds because they’re always the best use of charitable dollars. It allows them because the permanence attracts the donations in the first place.

Endowments motivate wealth sharing by wealth holders. This matters. It matters even if we don’t offer endowment structures. It matters even if we simply use endowment language. Either way, these concepts are still important. They’re important because they reveal motivation.

What motivates massive gifts of wealth? It’s not a mystery. Empirically, it’s an answered question. We know the answer with certainty. Wealth sharing by the wealthy is motivated by the features of charitable foundations and endowments.

Permanence, control, and identity

The features of the charitable endowment (or foundation) motivate massive gifts of wealth. What are these features?

The gift comes with instructions. The donor writes the rules. These legally control how the gift can be used.

Permanence, donor control, and donor identity motivate major gifts of wealth. Endowments and foundations offer these elements. So does 1 Timothy 6:17-19.

Paul’s message offers permanence, control, and identity. It offers endowment features. It uses endowment language. It emphasizes the elements that effectively motivate major gifts of wealth.

Paul’s permanent endowment words still apply

We know what features motivate large gifts of wealth. These are the features of the endowment. So, what do we do with that knowledge? Of course, we might offer these structures. We can offer endowments. Or we can offer some endowment-like features. But we don’t have to. We can simply describe the donor’s impact using endowment language.

Either way, the impact and memory of the donor’s good works continue. The donor’s identity as a good sharer remains. The donor’s strengthened connection to the fellowship community endures. And, of course, any heavenly consequences are eternal. These all remain even if some financial disaster erases all their other wealth.

Professor Ronald Ward explains it this way:

“By their repeated good deeds the rich will still be rich. When the deeds are done they are not lost. The rich still ‘have’ them if they are rich in good deeds.”550

Paul explains it this way:

“As the scriptures say, ‘They share freely and give generously to the poor. Their good deeds will be remembered forever.’” (2 Corinthians 9:9 NLT).

One commentator notes of this verse,

“the thought could be that the righteous man’s goodness will always be remembered, by humankind or by God, or that its effects will influence generation after generation.”551

This is like an athlete who wins a championship. Of course, he will lose that peak athletic ability. He’ll lose it gradually with age or immediately by injury. But the victory itself can never be taken away. It’s a permanent status. The Super Bowl champion wears the championship ring, even in his retirement.

In the same way, the rich can win a victory. They can make an enduring impact. They can do something meaningful with their wealth. They can grab a lasting identity. They can experience a lifetime of a good reputation. They can even leave behind this good family reputation for their descendants.

They have this great opportunity, but only right now. Ultimately, they will lose it. They’ll lose the capacity to make a meaningful impact with their wealth. They’ll lose the capacity to enjoy that impact. They’ll lose this at death or in financial misfortune. Only right now, at this opportune moment, can they choose to do something permanent. Only right now can they make a lasting difference.

If they do so, the results are permanent. No matter what happens, they’ll always have their completed good works. They’ll have an accumulation of them. They will have followed Paul’s instruction

“to hoard a wealth of noble actions by doing good” (1 Timothy 6:18b NEB). 552

Permanence is more enjoyable

Permanence motivates major donors

Permanence motivates large, once-in-a-lifetime gifts. We see it in the statistics. We can also see it in the donors’ own words.

At the establishment of his foundation, Andrew Carnegie wrote,

“My chief happiness as I write these lines lies in the thought that even after I pass away the wealth that came to me to administer as a sacred trust for the good of my fellow men is to continue to benefit humanity for generations untold.”553

One fundraiser explains it this way:

“We all are looking for meaning in our lives. We want to be part of something that is bigger than we are, something that will live on beyond our small human lives. Giving is a chance to experience joy and connection, to join in work that is powerful, positive, and enduring.”554

William James wrote,

“The greatest use of a life is to spend it on something that will outlast it.”555

The stability of a charity may not be relevant for small, immediate gifts. But it does matter for large lifetime gifts. One major donor explains,

“Giving the major gift fills you with joy and passion and connects you to the organization for a lifetime.”556

This lifetime connection may be one reason donors give large gifts to strong, stable charities.557 Studies using financial data from thousands of charities confirm this. One reports that fundraising success is predicted by a charity’s,

“Ability to continue to operate and provide charitable services in the event of changed economic circumstances.”558

Another study concludes,

“Donors want to know whether the organization can continue to operate in the future.”559

Big gifts don’t go to needy organizations. They go to permanent ones. For example, there are over 6,000 colleges and universities in the US. Yet, over a quarter of all charitable bequest dollars to education go to just 35 of them. Which ones are these? The wealthiest, oldest, and most stable ones.560

Mortality reminders increase permanence desire

In 1 Timothy 6:19, donors get a benefit “for themselves.” It’s a lasting benefit “for the future.” Paul offers a permanent outcome for donors. But first, he draws a contrast. The other options are temporary and disappearing.

Wealth holding is temporary. It’s uncertain. It can disappear. (1 Timothy 6:17). In fact, it will definitely disappear. It will disappear because we will disappear. We’re going to die. And we can’t take it with us. (1 Timothy 6:7).

Such death reminders increase attraction to permanence. We see this in experiments. In one experiment, people could donate to a poverty relief charity.561 Normally, people donated twice as much if the charity was described as

“Meeting the immediate needs of people”

than if it was described as

“Creating lasting improvements that would benefit people in the future.”

But if people were first reminded of their own mortality, things changed. The results reversed. Death-reminded people donated three times more with the permanence language. Death reminders made permanence language more attractive.

Another experiment on death-reminded giving showed the same idea. It looked at memorial gifts honoring a deceased loved one.562 Several options were tested to prompt a second memorial gift from donors. The one that worked best was permanence. If hitting a goal would create a permanent fund, giving increased dramatically.

Another study also explored why donors made memorial gifts. It explained,

“The answer to this question relates to permanence: donors who engage in in-memoriam giving want their deceased loved one’s name attached to the donation in order to preserve their memory forever.”563

A different kind of death-reminded gift is the estate gift. These reflect the same desire for permanence. In one study, people with a preference were three times more likely to want a permanent fund for bequest gifts than for current gifts.564

Each experiment shows the same idea. Death reminders make permanence more attractive.565 Paul’s death reminders followed by permanence language works.

Convert disappearing wealth into something permanent

Permanence is attractive. It’s attractive for those once-in-a-lifetime, legacy-defining gifts. It’s attractive for major gifts of wealth. It’s especially attractive when facing our own mortality.

Paul ramps up this attraction by ramping up mortality reminders. He emphasizes the instability of wealth hoarding. Then, he offers the permanence of wealth sharing.

By providing this contrast, Paul makes an argument for wealth diversification. Donors are not becoming less rich. They’re becoming rich in a new category. They’re becoming rich in a new, permanent way.

Imagine having a first meeting with your new wealth manager. He begins by asking,

“So, tell me: How would you prefer to lose your wealth?”

That sounds strange. But it is the truth. We will lose our worldly wealth. We can’t take it with us when we die. The only question is how.

“How do you want to lose your wealth?”

Not deciding is deciding. Attempting to hold it means it will be lost either to death or to financial misfortune. That loss is certain. It’s unavoidable.

Or imagine starting a conversation this way,

The first response might be simply,

“It can’t. I’ll be dead.”

This brings to mind Paul’s opening point. We can’t take it with us when we die. That’s a powerful place to start. It elicits a recognition that ownership is temporary. Wealth holding is disappearing. We can then discuss other, more permanent, futures. For example,

“You’re right. You won’t be here on this earth. But when you look back 100 years from now, what kind of an impact would you most enjoy having made? Are there any causes that have been important in your life? Is there any cause where you would like to have made a lasting impact?”

When we have wealth conversations, we want to have conversations about the future. What are the future plans for the asset? Is the plan to sell it? That’s a great time to encourage a gift. People are more generous with windfall gains.

Is the plan to die with it? Is the family really in need, or will this just be a surplus for them, too? Is there enough for your charitable goals in the estate plan, as well? Could you maybe even accomplish some of those while you’re still alive to enjoy it?

Focusing on the future highlights that they can’t hold the wealth forever. They are going to lose it. That’s guaranteed. The only question is how.

Both Jesus and Paul provide a better alternative. Why not convert some into a permanent form? Why not diversify? Yes, you’re rich. That’s great. But it’s temporary. Why not be rich in even more ways? Why not be rich permanently? Why not be rich in new categories? Why not be rich in good works? Why not be rich in identity and reputation? Why not build up for yourself a good foundation for the future?

Jesus says use wealth to “buy friends.” These are not just any friends. These friends “will receive you into the eternal dwellings.” (Luke 16:9). Paul says use wealth to koinōnikous. (1 Timothy 6:18). Use it to connect with the fellowship community.

There is nothing wrong with having wealth. But it’s disappearing. Having wealth is like being rich in Confederate dollars during the Civil War. It will buy stuff, but only temporarily. It will soon be worthless to you.

Wealth holders are in the same position as the shrewd manager in Luke 16:1-9. They control wealth, but not for long. They will soon lose that control. So, what ought they to do with it? Be shrewd. Convert it into something that will last when the wealth disappears. Diversify into an investment with real permanence!

Today. Tomorrow. Forever.

Donors can make an impact at different times. We can emphasize this through use of language. We can also offer it through giving structures. They can make an impact

Sometimes donors want an immediate impact. Sometimes they want a longer-lasting impact. Sometimes, especially after a death reminder, they want a permanent impact. This three-part menu connects with each time preference. Paul’s list of donor benefits does the same thing.

Paul emphasizes permanent outcomes. But this is just one of the donor benefits. Their giving makes an impact today, tomorrow, and forever:

The donors’ giving makes an impact today, tomorrow, and forever. The impact is immediate. It’s today. But it’s not only today. The impact is also ongoing and building. It’s tomorrow. But it’s not only tomorrow. The impact is also enduring. It’s forever. This appeals to every time frame. It delivers the ideal donor experience today, tomorrow, and forever.