Fred Clark: Subsidiarity is Really Important, Whether or Not You Call it That

Orphans — the sad but undeniable fact of orphans — highlight the danger and cruel stupidity of ideologies that preach atomized, exclusive responsibility. Those who allow themselves to be trapped within such ideologies wind up confounded by the existence of orphans. Who is responsible for feeding a hungry child? The parents, they say — only and exclusively the parents. They don’t want to hear any of this “it takes a village” business. But all parents are mortal, and some die too soon, and an ideology which teaches that parents are exclusively and solely responsible for children is unable to know what to do when that happens.

Fred Clark: Subsidiarity is Really Important, Whether or Not You Call it That

Career Paths and Calling

I’m on the mailing list for Mazarine Treyz at Wild Woman Fundraising, so recently I got an email about “winning the game of fundraising careers.”

It started with a short summary of what Treyz was looking for in a career before she became a consultant: she wanted a job at a university, where she “could have resources to succeed in my job, like a decent database, plus fundraising colleagues who would mentor me, and a career structure, and move on up to a position that paid enough to take vacations to Paris.”

Of course, she’s willing to give the reader some free advice on how to get one of those coveted university positions. And she’s willing to charge for more advice.

I’m not going to begrudge Treyz her dream job or her advice. I’ve been to her webinars. I’ve read her blog. I might even pay for her conference. She is a good consultant.

And we all have our own paths to follow and our own goals to reach.

But I’m troubled by the idea of ‘winning at the game of fundraising careers’. I say that as someone who’s been accused of trying to become overqualified for the kinds of jobs I want.

There are people for whom fundraising – or other nonprofit careers – is about getting a comfortable and lucrative position. I know some of them. They’re fine people who are often very good at their jobs. But I’m not one of them.

I’m a fundraiser because it’s a way for me to make the world a better place. I’m a fundraiser because it’s how I can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and free the oppressed. I’m a fundraiser because, as Frederick Buechner would put it, it’s the place where my deep gladness meets the world’s deep hunger.

When I take classes at The Fundraising School, it isn’t so that I can get a higher paying job. When I earned my CFRE, it wasn’t so that I could vacation in Paris. When I read the latest research or attend a conference or watch one of Treyz’s webinars, it isn’t so that I can be more comfortable. It’s all so that I can help community-based organizations, progressive congregations, and the people who support them make the world a better place.

Even more, I believe that those community-based organizations and progressive congregations deserve someone with those qualifications and more.

For me – and I suspect for most people in the nonprofit sector – this isn’t a career, it’s a calling. It’s not a game that I’m trying to win, it’s a vocation that I’m trying to live out.

And I bet that’s also true for Mazarine Treyz.

Neil Edgington: 5 Fundraising Mistakes Nonprofits Make

I was talking to a normally very savvy foundation program officer the other day who wondered if one of his struggling grantees should think about launching a new gala event to raise some additional money. I swallowed my first inclination to scream “NOOOOOO!” in the middle of a crowded restaurant and instead calmly explained why events are a bad money fix, and why any short-term money generating strategy is probably a really bad idea.

Neil Edgington: 5 Fundraising Mistakes Nonprofits Make

Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It)

A few years ago, a book group at my parents’ church read Robert Lupton’s Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It). My parents were interested in my opinion, so they sent me a copy. I was surprised at what I read. What I didn’t know at the time was that it was my introduction to a genre of literature and an informal movement aimed at reforming charity, the nonprofit sector, and a culture of poverty. This movement has no leadership, no centralization, no comprehensive line of argument. It’s a set of authors, speakers, and consultants who tell similar stories, refer to one another’s work, and suggest complementary reforms to how we address poverty.

Lupton’s book is one of the better known examples of the genre. In it, Lupton argues that charity should be limited to emergency situations because otherwise it hurts the person who receives it. Traditional charity fosters dependency, erodes the work ethic, and creates a sense of entitlement among recipients. Instead of giving charity, we should help people in poverty through jobs programs, asset based community development, microcredit, and so on. Traditional charity cannot solve the problem of poverty. We need a different strategy.

Assertions and Anecdotes

It’s completely reasonable to question whether any given charitable organization – or even the charitable sector as a whole – is effective. That’s exactly the kind of question that any donor or volunteer should be asking about the organizations to which they give.

While there are resources for donors who want information on specific organizations – GuideStar and Charity Navigator are probably the best known – there’s very little information that help us answer bigger questions about which ways of helping people are more effective or whether the sector as a whole is doing what we’d like. This is in part because of ethical concerns. It would be terribly immoral, of example, to find comparable individuals or communities, offer assistance to one, and deny that assistance to the other. Similarly, it would be immoral to offer comparable individuals or communities different kinds of assistance for the purpose of figuring out which method is more effective.

So it’s not necessarily surprising that despite his assurance that he “examined broader aspects of charity” with the same intensity as “Louis Pasteur searching for a causal relationship between germs and disease,”1Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 35 Lupton doesn’t offer data on the effectiveness of charity. He offers assertions and anecdotes. Nearly every section of every chapter contains a story, and many of these stories make for compelling reading: we can sympathize with the father who is embarrassed by the fact that his children must rely on the generosity of strangers for their Christmas presents2Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 31-35, or with the woman whose giving spirit is taken advantage of by a woman who she met at a soup kitchen.3Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 58-61

But the plural of anecdote is not data, and we should be careful about evaluating the entire charitable sector based on Lupton’s stories and the lessons he draws from them.

There are three major reasons that we should be cautious.

First, Lupton writes that when he began his Pasteuresque research into “broader aspects of charity,” he did so “under the microscope of [his] new awareness.”4Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 35 That awareness, though, was an awareness of the very thing he is investigating: it is awareness of “an unhealthy culture of dependency”5Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 35 and a broader toxicity of charity. His ‘research’ confirms what he already knew!

Second, and probably because of the first point, Lupton’s stories seem noticeably ‘thin’. For example, when he describes the Georgia Avenue Urban Ministry (now Urban Recipe) – which he calls “Georgia Avenue Food Co-op”6Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 53 – he ignores the complex model of service and community building in which they engage in favor of comparing its food co-op to the food pantry at Old First Church (which I suspect is also far more complex than Lupton’s few paragraphs suggest).

The description that he gives of the experience that led him to see ‘traditional models’ of charity as toxic is similarly thin. During the Christmas season of 1981, he was living in a community he was serving. He was having coffee with one of his neighbors when a group of guests arrived bearing Christmas gifts for the family. The mother answered the door and “a nervous smile concealed her embarrassment as she graciously accepted armfuls of neatly wrapped gifts.”7Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 32 During the visit, “no one noticed that the children’s father had quietly slipped out of the room.” 8Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity,32

From this experience, which Lupton described in two short paragraphs, he draws this conclusion:

[A] father is emasculated in his own home in front of his wife and children for not being able to provide presents for his family… a wife is forced to shield her children from their father’s embarrassment… children get the message that the “good stuff” comes from rich people out there and is free.9Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 33

Obviously, Lupton knows more about this experience than he reveals. But he doesn’t suggest that he spoke to the family about this experience or their perceptions of it. Instead, he presents the event as though he was able to intuitively grasp how the father felt and why, what the mother was forced to do, and what message the children got. He simply knows that the father is emasculated by the charity and not by the economic system that works so well for this benefactors and so poorly for him. He simply knows that the children get a message of dependency and entitlement rather than a lesson in the value of sharing from our abundance that they will reenact if they’re more fortunate than their parents.

Likewise, returning to his stories of Urban Recipe and Old First Church, he is able to draw an amazing assessment: that the cost of the efficiency of Old First Church’s food pantry is human dignity and that by engaging in these “traditional models” of ministry we “develop toxic relationships.”10Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 54

From this descriptions, Lupton is able to draw large lessons that fit the needs of his argument. As with all of his illustrations, however, Lupton’s interpretation is possible, but not necessary. While it’s conceivable that his interpretations are right, he doesn’t do the work of showing us that they are.

Third, even when Lupton draws on other research, he does so uncritically. The biggest single example of this is his use of Dambisa Moyo’s book, Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa.11Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 3, 94-97. In the latter section, Lupton quotes Moyo three times and paraphrases her at least twice. There are no citations, footnotes, or end notes. While this is admittedly a personal pet peeve of mine, it’s worth noting that failing to cite sources does not contribute to trustworthiness. Dead Aid may provide some insights into the situation of international assistance for Africa, and rethinking international efforts in the development of Africa may be a good idea. But Dead Aid has been roundly criticized, not least for ignoring the broader colonial, post-colonial, and cold war contexts in which much of that aid took place. Lupton uncritically accepts Moyo’s conclusions without seriously engaging any literature that challenges his own arguments.

None of this is to say that Lupton’s stories or opinions don’t have value. These are good stories and Lupton has years of experience in urban ministry. His opinions are informed opinions. But Toxic Charity is not a memoir. Lupton is not simply sharing his experiences or giving fatherly advice. He is leveling serious charges against traditional models of charity; he is suggesting that those models actively harm the people that they were meant to help; he is recommending a substantial overhaul of the charitable sector (an overhaul, as we will see, that aligns with a particular ideology). Taking these charges and recommendations seriously requires more than anecdotes and gut feelings. It requires data and rigorous analysis.

Christ and Capitalism

Like several of the books that make the case against charity, Toxic Charity is aimed squarely at Christians. The subtitle of Toxic Charity is How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It). This book isn’t just about how churches are failing the poor and how the church ought to help them. It is about how the church is failing the poor and how the church ought to help them. Given that, we might expect Lupton to spend some time considering what theologically and pastorally responsible charity might look like. But that thread is absent from the book.

That doesn’t mean that these concerns never appear in Toxic Charity. Lupton does write about the church. He writes about the ‘scandal’ of “religious mission trips”.12Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 5. There are further references on pp. 14-18 and 65-60 He refers to his own Presbyterian church.13Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 11, 65-66 He writes a section on “ministry entrepreneurs” and another on how “bad business equals bad ministry”14Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 18-26. He writes the already mentioned Christmas story.15Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 31-39 He shares anecdotes about and examples of church-based programs for the poor.16Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 51-61, especially. He looks briefly at the relationship between faith and trust.17Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 61-63 He laments the loss of a relationship with a church over poorly organized volunteering.18Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 70-75 He writes about what churches’ ‘mission portfolios’ should look like.19Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 75-78 And so on.

Lupton also refers to scripture and to Christian thinkers and leaders. Micah 6:8 receives the attention of almost an entire section of a chapter.20Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 39-42 The Parable of the Judging of the Nations is name checked.21Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 40 He mentions and quotes Jacques Ellul,22Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 34 Gary Hoag,23Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 45 Andy Bales,24Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 45-46 and Ron Sider.25Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 46 Other, more subtle references lurk in the background.

So it isn’t the case that Lupton ignores the role of the church or Christian thought in charity. He approaches these things through the lenses of scripture and his personal experiences and he offers both compliments and criticisms of the church for its approach to serving the poor. But, like his anecdotes, his examination of charity from a theological or pastoral perspective is thin. Neither his criticisms of nor his vision for charitable activity are not rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead, they are rooted in the ideology of capitalism.

Remember the core problem that Lupton has with traditional models of charity:

Decades of free aid from well-meaning benefactors has produced an entitlement mentality and eroded a spirit of entrepreneurship. The outpouring of more aid, though necessary to preserve life in a time of disaster, is ultimately worsening the underlying problem… [G]iving our resources hurts the poor as often as (or even more often than) it helps.26Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 36-37. The first portion of this quote is in related to international attempts to provide aid to Haiti, but Lupton applies the concept to all charity.

Lupton believes that the act of simply giving to someone as they have need creates toxic relationships and that healthy relationships are created when we “redirect traditional methods of charity into systems of genuine exchange.”27Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 38 Better to open a store where people who are poor can search for bargains or work in exchange for what they need than simply being given things from the abundance others enjoy.28Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 38-39

And that’s not necessarily wrong. there’s much to be said for developing opportunities for people to participate in their economies. But Lupton places an enormous amount of faith in the power of “reciprocal exchange” or “holistic compassion.”29Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 37 He seems to believe that directly including people in American-style economies is the key to helping them escape poverty.

Take, for example, his faith in the power of work. In a section that compares clothes closets and thrift stores,30Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 37-39 Lupton makes much of the dignity of work: “our low-income neighbors would much rather work to purchase gifts for their children than stand in free-toy lines with their ‘proof of poverty’ identification.”31Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 39 No doubt. But it never seems to occur to Lupton that the problem might be the line, the proof, of poverty, and the rules and regulations. Lupton places the blame clearly on the fact that the people in that line are receiving toys for free. Ironically, he seems to believe that the problem with gifts is that they are gifts.

His belief in the power of work is more problematic when he writes about hiring day laborers.32Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 152-154 In an effort to clear a vacant lot of grass, weeds, and debris, he decided “to take on the project”33Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 152 himself, with the help of some other labor. He went to Home Depot and randomly selected “two young Hispanic men.”34Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 153 He agrees to pay them $10 for the day.35Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 153. Assuming that they worked for a mere seven hours, that’s $1.43 per hour, a feloniously low wage since 1968.

Lupton uses this tory to illustrate two points. First, “Little affirms human dignity more than honest work. One of the surest ways to destroy self-worth is subsidizing the idleness of able-bodied people. Work is a gift, a calling, a human responsibility.”36Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 152


Life offers no fulfillment without work. Our earliest glimpse of the cosmos is a creative God at work. And the original design of paradise pictures humanity at work… Clearing debris from a lot or running a corporation, mopping the kitchen floor or selling a piece of real estate. Work, all work, is an invitation from God for us to take an active role as coparticipants in an ever-unfolding creation.37Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity, 154

Lupton’s right that work is an invitation to participate in an unfolding creation, but he’s not telling the whole story. He’s right that the book of Genesis begins with God creating the cosmos and that the second chapter of that book tells us that “God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.”38Genesis 2:15, NRSV But Genesis also tells us that our work is cursed because of Adam’s sin:

Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.39Genesis 3:17-19, NRSV

The Bible – and Christianity as a whole – balances two views of work: work can certainly be a blessing and provide meaning, but it can also be meaningless toil we must engage in merely to get the basic necessities of life. We probably cannot put all work on a single spectrum from paradise to curse, but my guess is that running a corporation or nonprofit is a lot closer to the former than doing manual labor for $1.43 an hour.

Lupton doesn’t spend any time looking at the larger socio-economic structures that let some people have fulfilling careers as participants in God’s creative work and leaves other people with drudgery. Just as he doesn’t ask why some people are in a position to give out gifts to the less fortunate at Christmas and others are in a position to receive them, he doesn’t ask why some people are in a position to randomly select people in a Home Depot parking lot for a day of landscaping and others are in that parking lot hoping and praying for a day’s work at scandalously low wages. Lupton, quite simply, doesn’t question the socio-economic systems that allow some people to live in abundance and forces others to live in poverty.

The gospel, however, does question those systems. And it suggests that those of us who are fortunate enough to have more than we need should overcome those systems by sharing with those who do not have enough. Scriptural examples of this are easy enough to find: Matthew 5:38-42, Luke 16:1-13Acts 4:32-37, James 2:14-26, and so on. Despite Lupton’s apparent desire to help Christians respond to poverty in a more responsible way, a Christian response to poverty probably won’t be responsible to existing social and economic systems.


Like many of the books making the case against charity, Toxic Charity is aimed squarely at Christians. But it is not a Christian argument. Lupton’s argument is firmly embedded in an American version of capitalism: provide microloans, give people work, teach people that nothing is free. It’s not surprising that this book seems to be popular among American middle-class churches. It’s based in the idea that, for those of us who are fortunate enough to be relatively privileged by American systems of race and class, nothing needs to change. We can continue to benefit from systems that exploit the poor and assuage our guilt – if we have any – by providing some means for the poor to live better lives within that system.

And, of course, we can villainize practices that don’t play within the boundaries set by American capitalism. It isn’t that poor people are dependent because they are forced to depend on others. It’s not that they lack work ethic because most of their effort goes towards survival, which tends not to pay. It’s not that their ‘entitlement’ is merely the reasonable demand to things to which they are in fact entitled. No. Poor people are dependent, lack a work ethic, and have a sense of entitlement because of charity.

The deep problem with Toxic Charity is that this doesn’t have to be an either-or problem. Or, to put it another way, the either-or problem is on a different level. We don’t have to abandon food pantries and housing rehab programs and mission trips and clothes closets in order to have effective food co-ops and job training programs and local businesses and microloans. We don’t even have to have the former restricted to ‘real’ emergencies while only the latter are available for the chronically poor. Someone can receive some things as gifts while working for others. Most poor people do. Most people (period) do.

But at another level, there is a choice. Christians, at least, do have to choose whether we will live by the standards set by Christ or those set by the world. The systems that leave people poor – that, at times, make people poor – can be redeemed, but in order to be redeemed they must be reformed. And this brings me to my final criticism: Lupton has chosen the wrong target. It isn’t charity – and idea with its theological roots in the love of God for the world – that stands in need of reform; it is the global systems of domination. That includes capitalism.

So if you want to make microloans, by all means do so. If you want to start a co-op, do so. If you want to start a job training program or financial management classes or any of the rest of Lupton’s final suggestions, do so. But also expand your food pantry and your clothes closet and your toys for children at Christmas. Being generous in one way doesn’t mean we can’t be generous in many others.

Footnotes   [ + ]

New York Times: Disparity in Life Spans of the Rich and the Poor Is Growing

The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001, and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart.

New York Times: Disparity in Life Spans of the Rich and the Poor Is Growing

Isaiah 58:5-8 (for Ash Wednesday)

Is such the fast that I choose, a day to humble oneself? Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush, and to lie in sackcloth and ashes? Will you call this a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD?

Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?

Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?

Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly; your vindicator shall go before you, the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.

3 Things That (Maybe) Worked in Fundraising a Decade Ago That Don’t Today

A while ago, I linked to this post by Carey Nieuwhof titled 9 Things That Worked in the Church A Decade Ago That Don’t Today.” I linked to it partly because I thought as many churches as possible should see it. But I also linked to it because I thought a lot of the things on Carey’s list applied to how nonprofit organizations raise funds. So I’m going to riff on Carey’s list a bit. I’m not going to talk about nine things, though. I’ll just do three.

Thinking People Will Automatically Give Again

Maybe there was a time we could rely on our donors to give to us. Maybe there was a time when all anybody needed was a little reminder to support an organization or a cause that they loved.

If there ever was such a time, it’s over.

It’s a well-known fact in the fundraising world that donor retention rates are terrible. According to Bloomerang – a donor management software company – median donor retention is 43% and first-time donor retention is only 19%. Think about that. Out of every 100 donors you have right now, 43 of them will be gone by next year. And those 100 brand new donors you brought on board? Only 19 of them will stick around. And that’s if you’re in the middle of the pack.

The simple fact is that donors don’t stick around unless we engage them appropriately. That means thanking them promptly when they make a gift, informing them about the good their gift has done, and involving them in our work.

Being Good Enough for Us

We often take pride in being good enough. We get thank you letters out in a time that seems reasonable to us. We publish a newsletter that looks good to us. We invite people to get involved in the ways we want them to be involved. We do what we think will keep our donors happy. And when those donors aren’t happy, we bemoan the fact that they just don’t understand.

Here’s the thing: there are about 1.5 million nonprofit organizations in the United States, and the average Baby Boomer gives to about four of them (the average Millennial gives to about three). We are always competing with a lot of other organizations for a very limited number of slots in our donors’ philanthropic inventories.

Being good enough for ourselves won’t work. We need to be better than the vast majority of those other organizations. We need to thank better. We need to inform better. We need to invite better. We need to stand out.

That’s how you get one of those four slots.

Being a Business

There was a time when nonprofits were businesses. There was a time when appeals eschewed contractions because they were too informal. There was a time when it was okay to talk about ourselves. That time is over.

Donors want to know that we’re professional. They also want to know that we’re people and that we’re passionate. They want to know that we’re passionate people who care about the things that they care about and who will help them realize their own charitable goals. Businesses don’t have that personality. They’re cold. They’re impersonal. They care about themselves.

That’s part of why so many businesses are leaving behind the business image; they know that people want to be involved in people.

We are people. We’re passionate people. We shouldn’t be afraid to show it.

So, What’s Not Working?

This is a short list and – let’s be honest – if it were a different day I might pick three other things that aren’t working.

As fundraisers, we face a lot of options about what we can do. We face a lot of rumors about what will work and soon won’t. How many times have I been told about the wonders of text-to-give or the demise of direct mail? It’s important to take stock of the things we’ve gotten used to and separate the wheat from the chaff.

One thing I’ve noticed, though, is this: the chaff usually isn’t our activities. It’s our attitudes.

Emily C. Heath: On Throwing the Baby Jesus Out with the Bath Water

That is counter-cultural to what my generation has heard for its whole existence. It’s Niebuhr’s classic idea of Christ transforming culture. And, if the church is to be “marketed” to the spiritual seekers under 40, this is our strongest “selling point”. The days of obligatory church attendance are over. If people fill our pews again it won’t be because we are offering something they can get anywhere else. It will be because we are sharing a Gospel that challenges and sustains them.

Emily C. Heath: On Throwing the Baby Jesus Out with the Bath Water

A Short Word on Church Grants

A surprising number of churches – sometimes churches that otherwise have very little money – provide grants to nonprofit organizations. I know this because I write a dozen or so applications for these grants every year. And having filled out a few dozen grant applications, having answered many questions about mission and vision and impact, and having attached all of the required supporting documentation, I had to ask: is this really the best way for churches to be managing their mission budgets?

Let me give an example. I recently submitted a grant that, in addition to a few pages of questions about the purpose for which the funds would be used, required: a current operating budget, a recent audited financial statement, a list of current funding sources, documentation of nonprofit status, a recent annual report, a list of members of the board of directors with affiliations, and copies of brochures. The final document was 32 pages long and about a quarter of an inch thick. The size of the grant being requested? About $5,000.

And while I was putting this all together, I was asking myself: is this committee really going to read the financial statement? Are they going to compare funding sources? Are they going to evaluate the affiliations of our board members? Is all of this information really going to help them compare the organizations applying for grants and make a decision?

I suspect the answer is: probably not.

Here’s my experience. The churches who give in response to my grant applications tend to be churches who would have given anyway: they ask me to submit an application, other groups in the church give, and so on. The grant application is documentation for a decision they’ve already made. We’re either an organization that they support or an organization that they don’t. And while there are many things that might convince a church that doesn’t support us to send some money, a grant application usually isn’t one of them.

I don’t know why churches – especially those that aren’t among the few that manage large foundations – require grant applications. I suspect that it’s a signal to their congregations that they’re very serious about how they use their mission money. They aren’t just giving money away. They review financial statements, they evaluate board membership, they know about other funding sources, they have Robert Lupton’s Oath for Compassionate Service in their criteria. The mission committee is doing very serious work. They’re as thorough as a community foundation or a government agency.

Look at see: there’s paperwork! This application is 32 pages long! It’s a quarter of an inch thick!

As you might have guessed, I’m not convinced this is a good way for most churches to make decisions about giving.

First, I don’t think that most mission committees have a strong method for evaluating and comparing all of this data. This is especially true when it comes from different organizations taking different approaches to solving different problems under different circumstances. I have nothing but respect for church mission committees, but I doubt that their well equipped to take on a task that even professionals at foundations find challenging.

Second, I don’t think that churches want people like me spending our time on these grants; and I really don’t think that they want staff at smaller organizations – organizations without dedicated fundraising staff – doing so. The size of many church grants means that it’s likely to be smaller organizations applying for them. I don’t think that the churches want the executive director of one of those organizations to spend six or eight hours writing answers to questions and assembling supporting documents. They want that executive director to be fulfilling the mission of their organization!

So what can churches do instead? Select the organizations that they want to support… and support them! Better yet, pick the organizations that they know – the places where members volunteer, or where they go on mission trips, or who send guest speakers to your Lenten program – and send money. Easy.

Now, I get it. Sometimes we worry about whether our money will be used well by an organization. Sometimes we worry about whether an organization will spend our money on the wrong thing. Sometimes we worry about whether an organization will be around in a few years. If you’re worried – whether you’re a church mission committee or an individual – pick of the phone or send an email. I promise, any nonprofit worth your gift will be happy to answer your questions.

Just please help us spend less time filling out forms and more time doing the work you want to support.

Pin It on Pinterest