Generous Billionaires

It's not one of those things where someone would think you've been living under a rock if you hadn't heard about it. Bill and Melinda Gates are known for their vast philanthropy --- endowing one of the richest foundations ever in the history of the world. Most people would consider them to be not only generous, but smart with their generosity. But they've been doing something in philanthropy that's noteworthy. They've been effecting other people's wealth and giving. And they've been doing it on purpose.

The first surprise was when Warren Buffet decided to transfer his philanthropy to their foundation. Huh? Apparently Buffet decided their smartness outweighed his own when it comes to using money for social good. So the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation became endowed with not only their wealth, but with the wealth of Warren Buffet as well. It seemed to impart some sort of strategic validation to the efforts of the Gates' foundation - as if to say that what they're doing has such a better chance of saving the world.

Needless to say, what Warren Buffet did was an unprecedented move in the philanthropy "industry." Philanthropists and non-profit executives around the world sat up and took notice. Surely it meant something in philanthropic circles. Something more than just the money.

Now the Gates' are known for undertaking a number of innovative approaches to worthwhile causes with their foundation. They place big bets on what they believe are initiatives that will actually make the world a better place. Typically these bets are in areas like education or health care. When you put money into your own foundation, you get the immediate tax deduction. You also get the right to spend that money pretty much any way you please (within some reasonable boundaries that are set by the federal tax code). So there's plenty of room for innovation. There's plenty of room for trial-and-error, experimentation --- and even failure. (The money can be squandered.)

It's probably safe to say that the jury is still out on whether or not Bill & Melinda Gates can use their wealth - along with the wealth of Warren Buffet - to make the world a better place. Nevertheless, they're getting credit for the sheer size of their philanthropy, and the impact it's having on other people's giving.

We tend to think, in modern society, that if people give a lot of money to charity ... then they are generous. And we tend to think that a lot of money going into charity is a good thing --- because we think it will make a difference. We think it will change the world for the better. Is that a safe assumption to make? Does have to be given and spent in certain ways to actually make a difference? Does money have to make a difference?

Let's think about the reasoning behind philanthropy. Those who have give for the benefit of those who have not. That's admittedly a loose translation, but most philanthropy follows that same basic assumption in some form or fashion. The problem is that money given by those who have isn't always benefiting those who have not. The recent growth of "donor advised funds" allows people, for example, to donate money to a non-profit entity and then direct how and when that money actually gets used to benefit others. And it could take several generations to actually see that money spent. (For an example of that, see http://victoriousconqueror.blogspot.com/2009/02/helmsleys-dogs.html/).

Recently, Bill & Melinda Gates, along with Warren Buffet, are back in the news again. They have publicly challenged America's other billionaires to pledge at least half of their wealth to charity. And many of those billionaires are taking the challenge and making the pledge. (http://www.givingpledge.org/) So far, there's no stipulation or even guidance from the Gates' as to where the money will be donated or how it will be spent. The initiative is simply trying to get massive amounts of wealth committed to non-profit agendas.

The news wires are treating this as a very big deal. (Perhaps it is.) The world seems to be pretty impressed. These rich people are being lauded as if they were heroes. The clapping and cheering can be heard worldwide.

But there are flaws in this kind of thinking. Patty Fisher, a columnist with the San Jose (California) Mercury News sheds light on a couple of those flaws this week. (http://www.mercurynews.com/patty-fisher/) Specifically, Ms. Fisher cites the fact that these billionaires could donate something besides money --- and she argues that their talents or influence, for example, could be even more valuable than their money. (The Gates' illustrate that point with their influence.)

Fisher also made note of the billionaires who haven't taken the pledge, and questioned the motives of those who have. Not unexpectedly, Ms. Fisher also argued that a billionaire giving half of their wealth to charity isn't making much of a sacrifice. And there you have it --- the elephant in this room. In fact, I suspect it is the most important point in this whole philanthropic discussion. Let's take a look.

When rich people give a lot of money, does it mean that they are generous? Most of modern society would say it does. But what is the true measure of generosity? How can it be so accurately defined? Jesus actually addressed this. He defined generosity when He told the story of the widow giving her few coins. Jesus specifically cited the fact that while others gave out of their wealth (or excess) ... the poor widow gave out of her poverty (or sacrifice). (Mark 12:43-44 and Luke 21:3-4). This is where Jesus clearly defined what generous is.

Generous people give until it hurts. They give out of their sacrifice ... and not out of their excess. If I give plenty, but I still have excess, then I still have not achieved generosity. Only when my giving cuts into my lifestyle - and imposes on my faith in God's provision - do I get to call myself generous. Can you accept that definition?

Jesus said He is "the way and the truth ..." (John 14:6) So when Jesus defines something, anything, the definition is final. There is no other definition; nothing to be discussed or considered. What Jesus says - about anything - is the truth.

Now it seems a reasonably simple concept to apply Jesus' definition of generosity to the reality of our giving. Give out of your sacrifice instead of giving out of your excess. And that's not hard to figure out in the the case of billionaires who can give away half their wealth and still be the richest people in the world. But it's even easier to apply this Biblical truth to common people ... the middle class and the poor people. It's easier to see when they're giving out of their sacrifice.

On-line mediums, like Facebook, Twitter, blogs or other venues have become quite popular for philanthropy. Anyone can start a charity, a non-profit or just run a giving campaign to raise money for their favorite cause. You may have seen the opportunity to buy a rubber band bracelet for a dollar and have the proceeds go to fight cancer. Or you've seen people joining a Facebook site to "support" a cause. Maybe you've taken used clothing and toys to the collection bins in the shopping center parking lots. Or perhaps you've donated used furniture to the thrift shop. Folks, stuff like this does not make any of us generous. Heck, it doesn't even make us effective!

Philanthropy needs a new game. In fact, it's game is getting worse instead of better. The world is hurting now more than ever. And we have the potential to do more good now than ever before. Unfortunately, our lame excuses for generosity are getting in the way. We believe the lie that giving a lot of money helps solve a social problem. It doesn't. Instead, a strong argument could be made for the fact that social problems don't get solved until people make sacrifices to solve them. So it isn't really even about money at all.

I challenge you to consider your own level of generosity. Are you giving until it hurts? Are you giving such that it requires faith to move forward? Are you making personal sacrifices for the greater good? And I challenge you to consider whom you bestow admiration upon for their philanthropy. Rock concerts to raise money, selling bracelets, holding auctions, etc. "liking" a cause on Facebook .... have done precious little to impact the world.

It's time that modern day Christians take a hard look at Jesus' definition of generosity (i.e., philanthropy) in the story of the widow and her two coins. And it's time that we apply this simple Biblical truth to our own giving and caring.

Moreover, when rich people give billions to their favorite cause, we can not assume that the world's problems are getting solved. Frankly, money just doesn't have that much power. But generosity? It holds all the real power!

We Could Do More

So a couple of weeks ago, we had a few couples at our house for the evening. The conversation drifted to the state of society today. One man, whom I won’t name but whom I dearly love, launched into a tirade against what he seemed to consider lazy Christians who don’t do enough in American society. He appears to see the travesty unfolding of people in America who are suffering in extreme poverty, teens who are not parented, criminals who are not rehabilitated and more. It was shocking to see him descend into anger over this situation.

As I later processed what I had witnessed in my own home that evening, I began to wonder if my dear friend might not be aware of how history has shaped our current culture. I agree with him that today’s Christians don’t do enough to shape our society. We could do so much more to change the world we live in. But I am cognizant of the fact that history has an awful lot to do with it. By that I mean that our government maybe had a role in training us to behave the way we behave. I think this is true in many respects, actually. But it is relatively easy to trace that path to philanthropy and social endeavors.

Advent of Big Government
President Roosevelt, whom of course was way before my time, has a reputation for having been one of our country’s greatest leaders. However, closely examining history, you may find that the truth --- played out in his policies in the decades that followed his presidency, may not be so rosy.

Revisit Franklin Roosevelt's first 100 days, which began with his March 4, 1933 inaugural. Seventy-five years ago this coming week FDR's big push climaxed with the National Industrial Recovery Act, officially known as the Act of June 16, 1933, which established the National Recovery Administration (NRA).

One big difference between then and now, though, is that in 1933 the materially depressed United States was in crisis, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed to act. His effective rhetoric did lift American spirits, and that was important. Yet New Deal programs that rolled through a Congress of 313 Democrats and 117 Republicans ended up prolonging the Depression, at least from the perspectives of many historians.

The NRA established a bureaucracy that led even the FDR-supportive Washington Post to note "the difficulty the business man has in keeping informed of these codes, supplemental codes, code amendments, executive orders, administrative orders, office orders, interpretations, rules, regulations and obiter dicta." The NRA would not allow prices to be lowered, so millions of people did not buy what they could not afford. The NRA demanded above-market wage rates for those newly hired, and the result was prolongation of high unemployment as businesses were reluctant to make hires.

Roosevelt could push through such government-growing legislation not only because of congressional dominance: he artfully used biblical allusions. In his first inaugural address, for example, FDR argued that America's land was bountiful and should be productive, but the problem was that "unscrupulous money changers . . . have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish." Then came the good news: "The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths."

The political application of these New Testament references soon became clear: Roosevelt wanted to increase federal power through "national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character." The era of big government had begun. Roosevelt threatened to become dictatorial if Congress balked. "I shall then ask the Congress for . . . the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."

Roosevelt was also adept at practical politics. Depression-era property tax revenues were down, so city officials had less money to spend. Demands from constituents for jobs and other favors were up. When New York City Democrats in 1933 laid off city employees and reduced services, Republican Fiorello La Guardia won election as mayor. Democratic urban machines across the country needed money, and fast, if they were to avoid similarly unceremonious boots—and Roosevelt's radically increased spending rescued them.

For example, Roosevelt gave Chicago Mayor Edward J. Kelly funds that enabled him to build a subway, airport, new roads and parks, public housing projects, and 30 new schools. Since the federal government paid 88 percent of Chicago's relief and jobs costs, the state government 11 percent and the city itself only one penny of every dollar, Kelly did not have to raise property taxes to pay for these projects. He received new terms as mayor in 1935, 1939, and 1943, and delivered Illinois to Roosevelt four times.

City by city, Roosevelt also used the urban machines to turn out people at marches and demonstrations that he then cited as proof of popular support for his programs. Many economists opposed the National Recovery Administration, with its price-fixing and wage-setting schedules. They complained about the biggest non-wartime intrusion on economic freedom in American history.

News pages, though, played up the human interest of 100,000 children assembled on the Boston Common to repeat this pledge: "I promise as a good American citizen to do my part for the NRA. I will buy only where the Blue Eagle flies. . . . I will help President Roosevelt bring back good times."

Combining religious rhetoric and power politics, Roosevelt consistently tried to show his followers that they could construct a stairway to heaven. To do that, however, he had to dump on the private efforts that apparently could build the stairway only halfway up: Bennington College professor James McCamy concluded that New Deal publicists were deliberately trying to discredit private institutions so as to promote a "shift of loyalty from private to public authority and decision."

Church vs. Government Relief
MIT economist John Gruber last year confirmed that Roosevelt succeeded in having New Deal governmental programs crowd out private giving. "Church relief made up 90 percent of the income of the poor before the New Deal," he found out: "Government relief made up 90 percent of the income of the poor after the New Deal." Gruber found that church and charitable giving held up well in 1929 after the stock market crash and did not drop until 1933 when the New Deal began. Then and only then did church spending for charitable purposes fall by one-third.

But, due to a conservative Supreme Court, the federal government did not grow as fast as Roosevelt wished. The justices in 1935 found the NRA to be an unconstitutional depriving of liberty, and FDR temporarily backtracked—only to come out swinging in his reelection campaign. Throughout 1936 Roosevelt alternated fiery speeches with pastorals, such as the one he gave in North Carolina based on the 23rd Psalm's teaching: "He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters."

Roosevelt argued that the declarations about God from 3,000 years ago could be replaced by declarations coming from Washington now: If wages were raised, those who "work in the mill or in the office" could have "a life in green pastures and beside still waters." Voters preferred that hope to the medicine GOP candidate Alf Landon offered, and Democratic domination of Capitol Hill became so great that only 88 Republicans were left to wander disconsolately through the House chamber.

So you see, my friend was right in his conclusion that the churches should be leading the social change in our society. He was right to opine that churches should be the major feeders of the hungry, ministering to the poor. And the fact of the matter is that this used to be the case! Churches in America were the primary source of social services – until FDR came along with his plan to save the world. And save the country he did. Now our churches and organized Christians sit and watch our inept government neglect the poor, the impoverished, the downtrodden and the misfortunate. And while billions of government dollars are poured into these social causes, our country continues to, as my friend might put it, “go to hell in a hand-basket.”

Today’s Christians could of course do much, much more to positively influence the society that we Americans live in. But today’s voters would do well to consider how history plays out – and make voting decisions based on truth and not just perception. Today’s politicians are giving us short-term fixes for immediate problems. But as history can teach (if we’re teachable), short term fixes to immediate problems often have long-term … and unintended … ramifications.

Listen to what current presidential candidates McCain and Obama have to tell you about how they’ll use government to forge a better America. Then try to consider what long term outcomes could result from the short term fixes they’ll propose – and you will embrace.