Crammed in my drawer next to my bed are years of arts and crafts, given to me with almost ecstatic anticipation by my four daughters over the years. A Beauty and the Beast coloring page; a blue, yellow, and green woven bracelet; a pink and yellow glazed pot, just perfect for a few coins. In each instance, my daughters worked, wrapped, and then gave gifts to their daddy out of a freedom, delight, and self-forgetfulness.

Like my daughters, Americans are generous. Yet Americans aren’t exactly joyful. Today 3 of 5 Americans report being lonely and 1 in 6 struggle with mental illness. During the pandemic, as we see philanthropic needs mount, some are skeptical that generosity will really help the painful world we live in. Many are asking a basic question about their money: can my giving really make an impact on problems this big and far-reaching?

Motives for giving have shifted even in the past couple of decades. Fred Smith, president of the Gathering, a group of Christian philanthropists, has pointed out that a sophisticated industry has emerged in the last generation that stresses the cleverness of avoiding taxes through giving. Instruments for facilitating tax-advantaged transactions, often sending money to special accounts to be given at a future date, are seen as smart philanthropy. The underlying motive is just as much about redirecting funds away from the government as is about supporting your favorite cause. Why give? Evade Uncle Sam.

The rise of socially conscious business has also called into question the habit of generous giving. Many organizations see business, not the nonprofit sector, as a better medium for social change. As such, impact investing — sometimes even with dollars already given to foundations or donor advised funds — is seen as a “smarter” investment. After all, this way we can earn a return and invest again later, rather than “lose our principal for good” by giving money away. Why give? Hold off and focus on investing instead.

For everyday givers like my wife and me, our ability to give is so small that we sometimes wonder whether we can make an impact. As we recently walked through Hudson Gardens, a public garden on the south side of Denver, I mentioned that we should consider making a gift to support the water lily garden. “But what good will our $100 really do?” my wife asked. “They must get support from much larger foundations.” We questioned whether our giving can make a sufficient impact. Why give? Don’t bother. It won’t make an impact anyway.

Of course, the much larger reason many couples don’t give is more basic: we have lots of expenses. Shouldn’t we pay off debt, save for my kid’s next soccer season, or just “give” the money to the furniture company that’s going to deliver a new ottoman for my living room in three days? And minimally, shouldn’t I save the money in case of a rainy day? Why give? Just wait until you’re rich. And then give when you can be sure the nonprofit will make a big splash one day in the future.

I recently read a book from one of the 20th century’s most prominent artists that challenged my perspective on philanthropy. Kahlil Gibran was a Lebanese-American writer and poet living at the turn of the 20^th century. His little book The Prophet has been translated into more than 100 languages. He asked many of the same questions we’re asking about giving, yet had an attitude about giving that restores the freedom and joy to an activity that many of us often can make a utilitarian exercise. Here are four insights from Kahlil Gibran on giving.

First, free yourself from the fear of tomorrow.

“For what are your possessions but things you keep and guard for fear you may need them tomorrow? And what is fear of need but need itself? Is not dread of thirst when your well is full the thirst that is unquenchable?”

How much, exactly, is enough? Andrew Carnegie said that the art of capitalism is turning luxuries into necessities. At what point, then, do we finally reach contentment and say, “I have enough for myself and those I love. Now I can give”? Gibran’s point is that even if our wells are overflowing, we still may be gripped with a fear of tomorrow. Internal peace that there is enough for me must precede our ability to freely give and freely receive.

In the Christian tradition, we point to Jesus’ teaching about the lilies in the field. If they are adorned with splendor greater than that of the uber-wealthy King Solomon, yet are here today and wilt tomorrow, will God not all the more take care of the children he loves (Matthew 6)?

“These are the believers in life and the bounty of life,” says Gibran, “and their coffer is never empty.”

Why give? There’s enough for all of us.

Second, because our money and possessions are temporary, the best time to give is now.

“And is there aught you would withhold? All you have shall some day be given; therefore give now, that the season of giving may be yours and not your inheritors.”

My house. My car. My business. My bank account. My kitchen countertop, my backyard, my clothes, and my book collection. This is a particularly poignant view at the outset of an economic recession, when the fear of tomorrow tends to cloud our view of the future.

They all will soon be in the possession of another. This insight of Gibran is simple but profound: you can hang onto nothing. Because this is true, drink in the peace and satisfaction of giving now, and let its blessings flow into your life and the life of your family, company, or community.

Why give? We can’t keep our possessions anyway.

Third, give generously because ultimately we’ve first been given to.

“You often say, ‘I would give, but only to the deserving.’ The trees in your orchard say not so, nor the flocks in your pasture. They give that they may live, for to withhold is to perish.”

Will the organization use the money well? What are your metrics of success? Can you share with me how this money will impact others and create permanent change?

Embedded in these questions is a good instinct: to be responsible with the wealth and resources we have and to use them well. Yet the human heart twists this good instinct and we like to think that we came across the money through our own hard work and intelligence, and we only want to then pass on our hard-earned wealth to “the deserving.”

Yet Gibran questions this attitude. Nature gives its fruit because it was made to produce and to give; to do anything less would make it less than it was created to be. Have we “worked hard” for our wealth? Yes, many of us have. But do we then “deserve” what we have?

Gibran reverses the question: do you, who have received so much free of charge, “deserve” to give to the receiver? Who really is being charitable? The giver, the recipient of the joy of generosity, or the receiver, who humbly and “charitably” opens himself to receiving?

Gibran says it bluntly, “See first that you yourself deserve to be a giver, and an instrument of giving.”

Why give? We’ve first been given to.

Finally, the deepest satisfaction is reserved for those who give neither out of joy nor pain, but simply because it is their nature.

“There are those who give with joy, and that joy is their reward. And there are those who give with pain, and that pain is their baptism. And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue; They give as in yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space.”

The final stage in generosity is neither to sacrifice for a cause, to experience pleasure, nor even to develop virtue. It is simply an act that flows from their nature, like a flowered tree gives its fragrance for free to any who pass by.

In stark contrast to the giving that is looking for an ROI, whether social, economic, cultural, or spiritual, this kind of giving is truly done freely. It is unconditional and it flows naturally from the character of the one who has been released from the bonds of accumulation and pride.

Why give? It flows from the nature of the whole, complete person.

As I look next to my bed stand, I see a small pillow, stuffed and sewed by my oldest daughter, given to me for my 35^th birthday. I imagine her sewing, intently, not for thought of reward, but simply to give. When I see the stitches, I simply smile. “Through the hands of such of these God speaks, and from behind their eyes he smiles on the earth.”

This post first appeared on the Denver Institute website. A big thank you to Chris Horst for reading an early version of this article.

Nonprofit Work

The Case for Giving to Denver Institute

December 22, 2017

Where does Denver Institute fit into the broader nonprofit community? Or more specifically, why financially support Denver Institute in your own giving portfolio?

All executive directors of nonprofits think about year-end giving this time of year, and I’m no different. Occasionally, it can be helpful when they make their own case for support and explain where they fit into a broader nonprofit ecosystem.

Most nonprofits exist to pick up the broken pieces of society. Addiction, homelessness, lack of opportunity – take your pick. When society falls apart, the nonprofit community plays a critical role in serving the poor, widow, orphan and sojourner. This is a good, biblical reason to financially support any one of a number of organizations serving the underserved.

But occasionally we must ask, how did society get here in the first place?

What about our leaders, our institutions, and our economy is so broken that it left out such a large percentage of our neighbors? What are the beliefs, values, and norms that have shaped the influencers of society – whether known or unknown – that need to change to build a more just social and economic structure?

These are questions for leaders.

At Denver Institute we form men and women to serve God, neighbor and society through their daily work. We tend to serve leaders and influencers in their respective industries, and we unashamedly believe that leaders, and the decisions they make, are fundamental to a healthy society.

When we think about our charitable giving, we need both a top-down strategy and bottom-up strategies. That is, we should give generously to organizations serving the poor. But we also should give to institutions trying to form future influencers with a solid ethical core who can in turn influence the institutions and systems that often cause the problems nonprofits deal with every day.

Several weeks ago I had lunch with a bright financial advisor. A kind and humble man, I shared an observation with him, “Often our charitable giving is addressing the same problems that we are financing through our investments.” He chimed in with an example: “On the one hand, we fund ministries that help men addicted to pornography. Yet in our investment portfolio we hold companies like Time Warner that sell pornographic channels to their subscribers.”

Here’s where we need to both fund organizations that help with pornography addiction and try to influence the CEOs, business leaders, and investors who can shape the companies that are causing the problem in the first place.

Another example: job training for low-income communities. Numerous nonprofits offer some kind of job training to women and men who are trying to get back on their feet. And so they’re hired by a company, hoping to get their life back together. But a recent conversation I had with a friend who works for the Association of General Contractors went essentially like this:

“The real problem is not in the training, but in the companies that hire them. I’ve seen far too many construction companies treat new employees like just a pair of hands – hours are terrible, there’s no chance for advancement, workplace culture is toxic, and benefits are scarce. We need companies who not just hire people for dead end jobs, but create good jobs where people can find a hope and a future.”

Political philosopher J.P. Nettl can shed light on this debate on how philanthropy can affect cultural change. He thinks we can learn a lot about effective social movements through observing cave formations. There are two type of rock formations: stalactite rock formations come down from the top of the cave. Stalagmite formations, however, come up from the bottom. When stalactite and stalagmite formations meet in the middle they form a single column. Social movements are strongest when both top-down and bottom-up approaches are united.

In our charitable giving, we also may want to consider ways to regularly give to both nonprofits serving the poor and the educational institutions serving current and future leaders.

Denver Institute convenes thought leaders, influencers and future leaders (through our 5280 Fellowship) in an effort to form leaders who will shape their workplaces and organizations for the good of the whole city. We’re certainly not the only organization trying to do this work, but if you’re looking for a nonprofit that’s doing good work in this area to add to your portfolio, consider giving to Denver Institute.

Photo: “5280 Fellows learn from Dan Dye, CEO of Ardent Mills”

Faith and Work Movement Theology Work

Collective Impact: The Missing Piece of the Faith-Work Puzzle

June 4, 2017

What will the faith and work movement look like in 2067? What are we doing today that could genuinely last for 50 years, and even reshape American culture?

These are tough questions. Not only because 50 years is such a long time, but it forces us to think not only of our own organizations, but the larger networks across the US involved in this space, and the institutions that can outlast individual personalities.

It also forces us to think: what, specifically, are the long-term goals shared among overlapping networks of churches, businesses, universities and nonprofits involved in spreading a Christian message about the far reaching effects of Jesus’ death and resurrection for our work, culture, economy, and world?

After pondering this question, I’ve come to believe something rather disconcerting. The single biggest problem with the faith and work movement today is fragmentation and the absence of shared goals.

In April of this year, Jeffrey Walker penned a provocative article for the Stanford Social Innovation Review, “Solving the World’s Biggest Problems: Better Philanthropy Through Systems Change.” “It’s one of the perennial questions facing the nonprofit world,” Walker writes, “Why, despite the sector’s collective resources and best efforts, do so many social problems remain so persistent?”

The gap between outcomes and intentions has long drawn attention from America’s largest foundations trying to solve social problems. And today, more funders are growing wary of the creation and growth of life-long organizations with ever growing budgets and staffs (or, in the faith and work world – with ever new efforts that come today and vanish tomorrow).

Walker writes, “Perhaps what we need instead, according to the emerging line of thinking, is an emphasis on what is called ‘systems change’—on identifying the organizations and individuals already working on a problem, and helping to join forces to achieve their common goals.”

The idea is simple: instead of focusing on creating new organizations and multiplying social entrepreneurs, we need to think about creative collaboration, or on funding “systems entrepreneurs” who can bring together diverse actors and act as a facilitator and negotiator between network leaders, with the objective of finding common goals that can produce collective impact.

I think fragmentation is the single biggest challenge today for those leading institutions committed to the integration of faith, work, and life – and for key funders in this space who want to see long-term, systemic social and ecclesiastical change. According to David Miller at Princeton, the faith and work Movement certainly qualifies as a genuine social movement. But it is an enormously fragmented and disjointed social movement. Dizzyingly so. Without even mentioning the organizations themselves, here’s just a sample of the organization types in this space:

Business as mission organizations
Churches
Church-based centers
Chaplaincies
Gender-specific organizations
Businesses
Speaker consultancies
Bloggers
Poverty alleviation and job training
Think tanks
Evangelistic ministries
Institutes
Universities
Fellows programs
Christian universities
Seminaries
Conferences
Capital/Finance groups
Professional groups (e.g., Christian Legal Society, Christian Medical and Dental Organization)
Generosity or moneyrRelatedgGroups
Spiritual formation organizations
Community development organizations

Years ago, I read an entertaining article by my friend Lukas Naugle entitled, “The Faith-Work Frankenstein’s Monster.” Frankenstein, indeed.

Just before I started Denver Institute for Faith & Work, I drafted an article for publication (just for my own sanity) on how people were using language in the faith and work arena. After putting these organizations in seven categories – faith and work, “work matters”, work and business, work and economics, work and vocation, work and the common good, and work and mission – I gave up. The article was over 20 pages, and didn’t begin to touch on all the issues being addressed in these diverse language circles.

I said to myself, “This thing is an octopus. I’m sure it’s all connected to a single head (Christ himself), but all I can see is a bunch of arms flailing about wildly.”

We’re so fragmented, how might we go about finding common goals amongst networks this disjointed? Whereas in Walker’s article he could mention aligning groups that all care about, for example, human trafficking, they all had a clear definition of the problem. When I talk to my peers and friends in thefaith and work movement, I’m actually not sure we agree on either the problem or the solution. Some would say it’s workplace evangelism and others job creation for the poor; some a healthy economy, some all-life discipleship; some cultural renewal, others cultural conquest, and still others cultural retreat (thank you, Rod Dreher).

So what can be done? Here’s my view: we need to take manageable slices of this Frankenstein monster called the Faith and Work Movement, and begin to work on shared goals, and thus, collective impact. For example, City Gate 2017 which begins tomorrow in San Diego.

Two years ago I asked, who is broadly trying to do similar work as the Denver Institute for Faith & Work in American cities? And how would I define our work in contrast to the multitude of other organizations? Here was what I came up with: The purpose of City Gate is to create a relational and strategic space to start and grow institutions focused on (1) the integration of faith, work and life by those with (2) a shared commitment to the church, (3) a particular region or city, and (4) the far reaching effects of Jesus’ death and resurrection for the world.

This is a very specific group. But the specificity, I believe, allows to us begin on the same page, and ultimately, to learn from one another and perhaps agree upon shared goals. This year, attendees include the following organizations:

Jeff Haanen, Denver Institute for Faith & Work
Geoff Hsu, Flourish San Diego
Missy Wallace, Nashville Center for Faith & Work
Lisa Slayton, Pittsburgh Leadership Foundation
Travis Vaughn, The Terminus Collective
Mark Roberts, Max DePree Center for Leadership at Fuller Theological Seminary
Matt Rusten, Made to Flourish Pastors Network
David Kim, Center for Faith & Work
Jim Mullins, Surge Network
Chris Lake, Vere Institute
Case Thorpe, The Collaborative Orlando

And we’re also blessed to have four start-up “city hubs” join us:

Ryan Wall, Watermark Community Church (Dallas)
Tracy Matthews, The Call to Work (Chicago)
Steve Lindsey, Los Angeles Center for Faith & Work
Clark Taylor, Chattanooga Center for Faith & Work

Alone, Denver Institute for Faith & Work is a relatively small organization: with 4 full-time staff and a budget of $650,000/yr, we reach about 1,000 people a year through programming and work with 25 churches. Yet together, the combined budgets of organizations at City Gate are $60 million/yr. We reach 15,530 per year through programing, work with 329 different churches, and function in (at least) 15 different cities.

This community now allows us to reexamine questions of impacting American culture in 50 years because we’re now dealing in systems. And because we’re all peers, and no one organization is calling the shots, we can openly discuss collective impact through shared goals.

Hurdles exist, clearly. Exploring alignment, open communication among partners, discovering workable models, measuring impact. Most importantly is relationship. Can we remain in community, and even develop friendship among pseudo-competitors? But minimally, we’re setting down early tracks for long-term systemic impact on both the American church and our secular culture.

For a nonprofit executive director of a small organization like me, it’s tempting to think, “If only we had enough money, we could change everything.” But one line from Walker’s article on systems change has been enduringly encouraging for me: “Let’s not kid ourselves: Money is not the only resource in limited supply. In fact, cash is positively abundant compared to other, more abstract necessities like hope, imagination and social cohesion.”

Hope. Imagination. Social cohesion. Perhaps that could last for 50 years…

Nonprofit

6 Stories of Generosity to Inspire on Colorado Gives Day

December 5, 2016

Tomorrow is Colorado Gives Day, a 24 hour drive to support the nonprofits across the state of Colorado. As the leader of a nonprofit that participates in Colorado Gives Day, I thought I’d post a handful of my favorite videos on generosity from my friends at Generous Giving and National Christian Foundation.

Here are my top 6 videos on generosity to inspire your own spirit of generosity as you prepare to schedule your gifts online tomorrow.

6. “Work like a doctor, live like a nurse”

After becoming a doctor and accomplishing all of her life goals at an early age, Dr. Lockey realized that her dreams had not brought her life fulfillment. As she served on medical missions teams and sought direction from God, she realized that an abundance of possessions would never bring true joy. So, after wrestling with God, she took a radical step of faith…

(see video above)

5. “Bill & Vonette Bright – Surrendering Everything”

In 1951, Bill and Vonette Bright, founders of Campus Crusade for Christ, signed a contract with God to surrender everything to Him. The Brights share what their commitment has meant for them; the pouring out of their lives in ministry to the King, trusting Him to provide for their needs. What I love about this video is that in this video, you can almost see them shining with a luminescent joy….

Bill & Vonette Bright – Surrendering Everything from Generous Giving on Vimeo.

4. “I Like Car”

A woman gives everything she has to a widow and is surprised by the response of those around her…I started crying the first time I saw this video.

I Like Car from Generous Giving on Vimeo.

3. “Use Your Business to Fund Ministry”

Many business owners have a heart to give charitably but feel hindered by their limited cash flow and the high taxation of their businesses. My friends at National Christain Foundation can help business owners donate a non-voting interest in your business, receive a substantial tax deduction, and still maintain management oversight of your business.

This video won’t make you cry – but it will certainly make you think about what tax-wizards can do to unleash generosity in the Body of Christ.

Using Your Business to Fund Ministry from National Christian Foundation on Vimeo.

2. “The Gospel, Grace and Giving – Tim Keller”

In typical brilliant/humble/life-changing fashion, Tim Keller makes the case why generosity is core to the gospel itself. God first gave himself to us….

1. “Alan Barnhart – God Owns Our Business”

Katherine and Alan Barnhart added an interesting twist to the American dream and made it their business not to get rich. As newlyweds, they set up safe guards to protect them from the pitfalls of money as they took over a family business. From the beginning, they set a financial finish line and told God if He prospered the company they would use it to advance the Kingdom instead of advancing their lifestyle. With a winsomeness that is contagious, Alan tells the story of God’s richness toward them and their journey to live the life that is truly life promised in scripture.

This video is seriously my favorite testimonial on generosity. Who gives away 99% of their business (and then eventually the last 1%), and lives on a tiny fraction of what they could be spending? Incredible. Makes me think twice about not only generosity, but the legacy I leave for my children and their children.

Alan Barnhart – God Owns Our Business from Generous Giving on Vimeo.

Economy Nonprofit Work

The “Culture Hole” in Our Annual Giving

November 7, 2016

So many charities, so many choices. This time of year, year-end fundraising appeals pour into our mailboxes. How are we to decide between the many worthy nonprofit causes that are asking for financial support?

If you’re anything like Kelly (my wife) and me, you have to make this choice carefully. We’ve set aside a certain amount each year in our charitable giving budget, and we want our donor dollars to make an impact.

For us, there are two giving categories that won’t budge anytime soon: the local church and the poor. We believe we have both a duty and a joyful opportunity to support our local church (Littleton Christian Church) as it proclaims the gospel to our community and nonprofits like HOPE International that are serving the poor and marginalized throughout the world. I believe these two categories should be universal priorities for Christians.

But I think many Christians have often overlooked a third category for charitable giving: culture. Actually, I believe the culture category is necessary considering the redemptive scope of the resurrection and what it means to be a follower of Christ in this world. Education, the arts, scientific research, leadership development, even politics (Did I really just write that?). The broader arena in which we work and live needs generous donor support – and without generous culture patrons, our entire civilization is negatively affected. Not a small claim to defend!

Here are three reasons why I think we all need to add “culture” to our annual giving priorities:

Not all good activities our society needs are profitable, and thus, they need charitable support.

Imagine if you had to buy a $20 ticket to go to church each Sunday. Would you be incensed? What if you grew up in a community with no symphony, or you never visited an art museum or arboretum as a kid? Do you feel like other children should have that experience today – even if they can’t pay for it?

We live in the age of philanthrocapitalism – a view that says philanthropists ought to act like angel investors, and nonprofits should cease with this fundraising nonsense and act more like businesses.

Many nonprofits should indeed develop earned revenue streams (book sales, event ticket sales, or fee for service). And many organizations need to vastly improve reporting and metrics. But some valuable human endeavors are simply not profitable. And never will be.

Two examples:

(A) Education. It’s not profitable. It just isn’t. When a Ph.D. student spends five years studying medieval Hebrew manuscripts, or a kid learns a multiplication table for the first time in second grade, there’s no way these activities can – or should – be profitable. Experiments in for-profit higher education, like the University of Phoenix, haven’t gone well. The point is that education is good… and costly. And it will perpetually require donor and/or government support to impact lives and shape an educated citizenry, which our businesses, churches, hospitals and, yes, schools, depend on.

(B) Science. Building the large hadron collider, a massive particle accelerator, is costly. Really costly – to the tune of about $13.25 billion. Now, why on earth would anybody fund this? Because this activity could push all of humanity forward through a new scientific breakthrough. It’s not profitable – but it is valuable. Cancer research, a children’s hospital, the chemistry department at your local university – each need donor support.

I fully understand the need for sustainability in the nonprofit world. Trust me: as the executive director of a nonprofit, I understand this. We actively work on minimizing risk and diversifying our income streams. But it’s also worth remembering that there are incredibly valuable human endeavors that require generosity and can only flourish with the support of people who think private schools and preserving primate habitats – “culture” – are worth donor support.

Christianity leads us to invest in a broad scope of redemption – and a broad commitment to human flourishing.

Colossians 1:19-20 says, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” All things, many theologians have pointed out, means the individual soul but also neighborhoods, cities, and entire areas of human endeavor, like art, law, manufacturing, agriculture, retail, and investing.

Or take a less-quoted example: Zephaniah 3. When God judges Israel for her sin, he says, “Her officials within her are roaring lions; her rulers are evening wolves, who leave nothing for the morning. Her prophets are unprincipled; they are treacherous people. Her priests profane the sanctuary and do violence to the law.” God is judging not just individuals, but cultural norms that had become unjust. He speaks to government leaders, the media (ancient prophets functioned in many ways like the media of today), and corrupt religious leaders.

God’s law, given through Moses at Sinai, lays down a vision for a just society, not the private salvation of individuals nor isolated acts of charity. As soon as he tells people to “act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God,” he follows up by mentioning the integrity (or lack thereof) of their business practices (Micah 6:8-11).

God cares about all of his creation, from neurotransmitters to nuclear energy. And because of human sin, each area of the world is distorted due to sin. Syria is crumbling, spiritual emptiness is rampant, caustic partisan division is paralyzing Washington, and refugees are suffering.

Anthony Bradley, a theologian at The King’s College, defines human flourishing as “a holistic concern for the spiritual, moral, physical, economic, material, political, psychological and social context necessary for human beings to live according to their design.” Does our giving reflect this broad view of human flourishing?

We can’t change all that has gone wrong, not give to every cause. But we can do something. Why not pick an area of culture – like spurring on the generosity movement, contributing to the formation of a potential leader, or even giving to a bunch of scholars thinking about culture – and give generously?

The poor need us to give to “culture.”

Last week I was talking with my friend David, who, through his career, has become personal friends with many high ranking government officials in Africa. One day, he took an emerging leader from the Congo (a lawyer by trade) to visit one of the world’s biggest private equity funds (hundreds of billions in assets). The fund manager said, “We’re interested in investing significantly in the Congo. But we can’t yet. Because of the scope of the investment, we need to see political stability for at least 10 years before we invest.”

The young leader went away encouraged – knowing that this investment could create thousands of jobs for his countrymen – yet knowing he needed to work on building networks of moral integrity in the upper echelon of leadership in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help stabilize a county that’s been torn by civil war.

The point has been well made by documentaries like Poverty, Inc. or books such as Entrepreneurship for Human Flourishing that entrepreneurship and business does more to alleviate systemic poverty than charity ever will. But that’s not to say that charity isn’t necessary. On the contrary, what we most need is a certain kind of moral fiber among business leaders that turns wealth creation into societal benefit. Earning more money can mean the chance to buy more whisky and prostitutes, or it can mean the chance to invest in your kid’s education. The formation of ethical leaders, especially in business and government, is critical to poverty alleviation. (Gary Haugen has also made the case that the rule of law and preventing violence from sweeping through countries is also critical to development work.)

In summary, if we care about the poor, we can’t just give to the next natural disaster or emergency fundraising appeal we get in the mail. We need to build up institutions and the people who lead them because it leads to jobs, stability, and cultures of virtue that can put poverty to rest for good.

The Most Generous Country in the World

Americans are the most generous people in the world. We give away over $1 billion dollars a day. We give away $373 billion a year – and 73 percent of that is from individuals like you and me. (Though we give the most by total contributions, Australia and New Zealand edge us by a greater percent of people who give to charity each year.)

And people of religious faith are the most generous of all Americans. It’s controversial, but true. Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute reports that the average annual giving among the religious is $2,210 per year, whereas it is $642 among secular Americans. Christians even give to secular causes more generously than secular people.

Each year, Kelly and I strive to give more generously for the core reason that God has first given generously to us.

It’s makes me excited to give this year to the church, to the poor – and to the cultural endeavors that God so loves (John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19).

Jeff Haanen

philanthropy

Why Give? Kahlil Gibran on Generosity

The Case for Giving to Denver Institute

Collective Impact: The Missing Piece of the Faith-Work Puzzle

6 Stories of Generosity to Inspire on Colorado Gives Day

The “Culture Hole” in Our Annual Giving