In the last 150 years or so, a few critics in every generation have questioned whether the pyrotechnics of fund-raising provide a suitable setting for learning and teaching about giving. Life in the major reform movements often seemed like a continuous fund-raising campaign. Conflict and tension were palpable. (The word “campaign,” after all, was borrowed from the language of war.)

And how could it have been otherwise? There seemed to be so much to do in such a short time. Surely by the end of the century. Some went further: “The evangelization in this generation,” was one of the favorite Protestant slogans in the nineteenth century. The pressure to respond with a quick “yes” – “Now is the time to give!” – did not always encourage reflection and mature decisions. The pressure to conform was pervasive.

That pressure also prompted critics to look for alternatives. Out of their search came a renewed interest in disciplined giving – for instance, the practice of tithing or of “proportional” giving. Both approaches offered ways of resisting external pressure and developing an internal standard of judgment. The emphasis upon self-determination fit nicely into the American code of democratic individualism. Each of us must finally heed the dictates of our conscience.

These critics, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, foresaw “no instant prospect of a virtuous revolution.” Nor did most of them indulge in the utopian conceit that the practices of fund-raising would someday fade away. The best they could hope for was a future in which there would be multiple ways of learning and teaching about giving. The growth of tithing groups and other educational gatherings for givers would provide richer nourishment than what could be learned in the hurly-burley of most fund campaigns.

Over the span of seceding generations a new tradition could take root. The presence of independent, self-starting givers committed to a life-long discipline is a sign of sustainable progress: each committed giver could teach others by example. In each generation the circle of teachers would become larger. Some advocates of this long view of the future envisioned a gradually growing corps of disciplined givers over an extended period.

So which of these images of the future make sense to you – “All seems possible.” “All within reach” or “A sign of sustainable progress?” Neither one? Both to some degree? 

Do you share the worries (as suggested above) about the presumed negative consequences of fund-raising activity as a “school” for givers? Is that fair? Some experienced development specialists speak of “friend-raising” or even “faith-raising” rather than “fund-raising.”

Reactions? What do you think are the most promising contexts for learning and teaching about giving?