A new era is coming. And so the time to give is now! These two commonplace sentiments have helped empower an array of ambitious enterprises over the past two centuries. “Now is the time” was the slogan for such causes as the Protestant effort to complete “the evangelization of the world in this generation” or the work of the anti-slavery movements or the great “temperance” crusade against liquor.

When Daniel Dorchester wrote the words – “the nineteenth century in America has seen more progress than any other period in history” – in 1881, he clearly felt a sense of accelerating momentum rushing toward the future. Just think of what might happen in those remaining nineteen years of the century. The word “movement” seemed a fitting way of describing the newest centers of energy working for reform and change.

The same spirit of anticipation transformed talk about giving in some movements. The time to give is now lest Americans miss, as one enthusiast exclaimed, even one “day of opportunity such as the history of our fallen race has never before seen.” “Now” means today, this year, this decade.

The multiplying power of a gift could help trigger vast changes. My neighbor’s gift inspires me to give more and our combined generosity can touch others. Givers support each other, lest anyone be tempted to falter or drop out. So the movement and its great cause prosper and the pace of change accelerates.

In these circumstances the best gifts were something far beyond the usual contribution. Proportional giving of any kind was not nearly enough. The message was clear: forget those rational calculations by which one carefully limits the sum to be given. Be willing to sacrifice.

Only a minuscule minority embraced these ideals. Yet stories about these radical givers became embedded in the legends and folklore of movements. These were tales of  passion--passion for both a cause and for the giving that the cause inspires.

These stories also inspire many questions. We will mention only two puzzles. First, what happens to the giver when the movement no longer has momentum and nostalgia for its former glory becomes more beguiling than the challenges of facing the future? Movement givers run the risk of a high burn-out rate and then later, perhaps even a post-movement spiritual depression. The swiftly turning merry-go-round of contemporary fashions in causes can leave a residue of distrust of any kind of giving.

Second, what has happened in recent decades to the notion of “sacrifice?” What would move us to genuine sacrifice in our own giving? Is there any cause, any imperative need worthy of our sacrifice, or has that word lost its meaning for us? Has it become just a polite code phrase in a high-pressure campaign for a slightly larger pledge than one would ordinarily think of making? 

Daniel Yankelovich’s eloquent reflections in his 1981 book, New Rules: Searching for Self-Fulfillment in a World Turned Upside Down, seem as though they were written about American society in the early years of the twenty-first century. “Throughout most of this century, Americans believed that self-denial made sense, sacrifice made sense, obeying the rules made sense, subordination to the institution made sense. But doubts have set in, and Americans believe that the old giving/getting compact needlessly restricts the individual.”

Responses?