Posts tagged with: philanthropy

Forbes contributor Jerry Bowyer recently interviewed Fr. Robert Sirico about PovertyCure and charity. Bower has split his interview into several parts and you can read the previous post here. In this section, their discussion focuses on “Bad Almsgiving:”

Jerry: “Charity can be selfish, can’t it?”

Fr. Sirico: “Yeah, it can be very self-indulgent.”

Jerry: “Let’s say ‘philanthropy’. I mean, genuine charity is a Christian virtue, but the philanthropy industry can be selfishly structured and selfishly supported.”

Fr. Sirico: “Well, what we look at in PovertyCure in one of the episodes is all of the different elements (especially in international grants and aid) — the NGOs that are involved in the process; we even look at the celebrities and how this comes up every few years where people are saying, “Help us, let’s do this food for Africa,” or the U.N.’s effort to tax all the nations 1% of their GDP, the Millennium Goals project. All of these different things that come up every few years that are part of this whole poverty industry, and how dangerous that is because it distorts all of the incentives and removes the centerpiece of the ladder for the poor to actually climb up out of poverty, because it removes the profit incentive for people to come and invest and train people in a workforce that’s ultimately productive.”

Jerry: “There’s a quote also in that section of PovertyCure, from Sir Bob Geldof: “We need to do something, even if it doesn’t work or help.”” (more…)

reich2In 2012, nearly $39 billion was spared to American givers via the charitable tax deduction, $33 billion of which went to the richest 20 percent of Americans. If that sounds like a lot, consider that it’s associated with roughly $316 billion in charitable donations.

Yet for Professor Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, much of this generosity is not devoted to, well, “real charities.” His beef has something to do with the wealthy’s obsession with “culture places” — the opera, the symphony, the museum — realms that, in Reich’s opinion, are undeserving of what should be an allocation to his own pet projects. “I’m all in favor of supporting fancy museums and elite schools,” he writes, “but face it: These aren’t really charities as most people understand the term.”

The picking and choosing follows in turn, descending farther and farther into the typical terrain of progressive materialism — focusing excessively on surface-level transfers of this particular dollar into that particular hand and lambasting those rebellious Makers and Givers for getting it all wrong. (more…)

tn-tithing-givingSelf-proclaimed “tithe hacker” Mike Holmes has a helpful piece at RELEVANT Magazine on how tithing could “change the world.” (Jordan Ballor offers some additional insights here.)

Holmes begins by observing that “tithers make up only 10-25 percent of a normal congregation” and that “Christians are only giving at 2.5 percent per capita,” proceeding to ponder what might be accomplished if the church were to increase its giving to the typical 10 percent.

His projections are as follows:

  • $25 billion could relieve global hunger, starvation and deaths from preventable diseases in five years.
  • $12 billion could eliminate illiteracy in five years.
  • $15 billion could solve the world’s water and sanitation issues, specifically at places in the world where 1 billion people live on less than $1 per day.
  • $1 billion could fully fund all overseas mission work.
  • $100 – $110 billion would still be left over for additional ministry expansion.

Such broad hypothesizing can be helpful in offering a small glimpse into what we might call the economic potential of the church. But, in addition to noting the more obvious questions about whether $25 billion (or any amount) can actually “relieve global hunger” (etc.), I would simply emphasize that such estimates are small glimpses indeed. The divine impact of the tithe stretches well beyond the material, even as it pertains to the material. (more…)

Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, a lecturer at Stanford University, on what makes a philanthropist:

WSJ: How do you define a philanthropist?

Ms. Arrillaga-Andreessen: A philanthropist is anyone who gives time, money, experience, skills, networks [or] passion. The only thing that you need is generosity.

For example, [recently] after class I counseled a young computer science student who wanted to talk about how he could play a role in changing how engineering is taught globally. So we started developing a strategy for how he could start blogging, email professors, networking with other Stanford engineering alumni, and create some momentum through his own actions that have nothing to do with money, but rather have to do with his time, his intellect and his social capital.

Technology is disrupting the way we communicate, connect, create and consume, and philanthropy is no exception. Take [nonprofit lending platform] Kiva, which was actually co-founded by one of my former business school students, Jessica Jackley. We’re talking about the rise of the $10 philanthropist, the $25 philanthropist.

Philanthropy is now accessible to anyone of any age, of any financial resources, in any geographic location.

The Washington Post has an interesting story on young people who feel their vocation is “earning to give”—making as much money as possible in order to give away as much as possible to worthy causes. An example is Jason Trigg, an MIT computer science graduate who works as a programmer for a high-frequency trading firm:
(more…)

The Good Rich and What They Cost Us, Robert Dalzell Jr.In a new book, The Good Rich and What They Cost Us, Robert Dalzell Jr. aims to address “a great paradox at the core of the American Dream: a passionate belief in the principles of democracy combined with an equally passionate celebration of wealth.”

In a review for the Wall Street Journal, Amity Shlaes notes that although the book provides an in-depth look at the history of American philanthropy, the author’s own personal prescriptions lend too high a trust to government redistribution:

“The Good Rich” starts out like a tour through a portrait gallery, describing rather than judging. For much of his narrative, Mr. Dalzell refrains from giving his own opinion explicitly and reports merely that the rich have often blamed themselves for their lapses or oversize good fortune, or that their peers did.

Toward the book’s end, though, Mr. Dalzell drops his own screen, putting forward a familiar argument: that democracy suffers unless wealth and philanthropy are redistributed to reduce economic inequality. Even the “good rich” cost us: They don’t give wisely, Mr. Dalzell contends, spending too much on “elite institutions like Harvard, Yale, MIT and Princeton, which seems unlikely to reduce the income gap by much.” …For the sake of the public good, then, the rich must fashion better charity projects while handing over more of their money to the government.

Such philanthropic efforts deserve to be thoroughly examined. Likewise, from the poorest of us to the wealthiest, we should be energetic in examining our own activities, using discernment and wisdom in how we use our resources. But as Shlaes indicates, if it’s difficult for we individuals to wrestle with these deep questions about stewardship — particularly when we’re calling on the Divine for wisdom, as many philanthropists under Dalzell’s microscope claim to have done — how much more difficult will it be for a bloated government machine to utilize proper discernment? (more…)

Radical Together, David PlattOver at Thought Life, Owen Strachan uses David Platt’s book, Radical Together, as a launching pad for asking, “Are you and I making and using money as if there is no such thing as the work of the gospel?”

I’ve already written about my disagreements with Platt’s approach in his first book, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream, and Strachan expresses similar reservations. While appreciating Platt’s emphasis on “exaltation of and dependence on a sovereign, awesome God,” Strachan is concerned that on the topic of wealth—a primary target of Platt’s—readers might easily rush to the assumption that wealth and prosperity are bad altogether.

Evangelicalism desperately needs Platt’s laser focus on the gospel and missions. The church exists to make disciples for the glory of God, both locally and abroad. I would only point out that I think that wealth and philanthropy can actually be our friend here. In other words, if you want to apply the “radical” model–with its many strengths–I can think of few things more radical than using one’s wealth for gospel purposes. Maybe the most spiritual thing to do to support the promotion of the gospel is this: stay in your job, save and invest scrupulously, and keep pumping out money to support missionaries and pastors.

Here’s just one example of thousands we could give on this point. A forgotten man named Henry Parsons Crowell made vast amounts of money through the Quaker Oats company. Did he hoard it? Nope. He gave away 70% percent of his massive income and helped bankroll Moody Bible Institute, the school that…has sent out thousands upon thousands of missionaries in its century of ministry. Yes, every time you eat Quaker Oats, you’re paying masticular homage to a man who–merely by giving money–helped catapult the gospel all over the world

…This is a testimony to what wealth, including but not limited to truly fabulous wealth, can do if committed to the Lord. It’s one of countless others we could share of evangelicals of great or small means who tucked money away not for themselves, but for the work of Christ’s church. (more…)