Just “A Question of Money”?

In 1908 a young Protestant layman, returning from a student convention in Canada, became convinced, as one later chronicler noted, “that the rapid conversion of the world had become simply a question of money.” “We have the money in the pocket-books of the churches,” he wrote to an older church leader, “How shall we reach it?”

This vignette reflects the spirit of its time. “The first fifteen years of the twentieth century,” an historian wrote, “may sometime be remembered in America as the Age of Crusades. There was a superabundance of zeal, a sufficiency of good causes, unusual moral idealism, excessive confidence in mass movements and leaders with rare gifts of popular appeal.”

How would you describe the spirit of the opening years of this century? And how does that spirit become evident in the ways in which you think about giving?

---

“National Selfishness” as “Unbounded Philanthropy?”

In his novel White Jacket, Herman Melville compared America to “Israel of old.” “And we Americans are the peculiar chosen people – the Israel of our time; we bear the ark of the liberties of the whole world. . .. And let us remember that with ourselves, almost for the first time in the history of the earth, national selfishness is unbounded philanthropy; for we cannot do a good to America, but we give alms to the world.”

“National selfishness” as “unbounded philanthropy?” Was Melville playing games with his readers? Irony? A sly critique of the American theme of “innocent nation in a wicked world”?

Or was he just trying to explain why past generations of Americans tended to assume that their giving – whether to national or international causes – could have potent consequences for others across the globe? Do we believe that of our giving today? Are American dollars better – or worse – than other currency?

---

An Order of Priorities and Commitments? 

“Cause” givers vary considerably in the intensity of their response and the degree of their activism. At one of the end of the spectrum are the checkbook activists who speak of “interests” that seem to merit support. Their lists of “worthy causes” change from time to time. These folk can be counted on for donations, but seldom for generous gifts or extensive time commitments. The vast majority of American cause givers, we would guess, move toward this end of the spectrum.

In contrast, the high-energy activists are more likely to be swept up in service to a single movement, or perhaps to several closely related causes. “The” cause becomes a ruling passion in their lives, a central commitment rather than just one among several philanthropic concerns. They respond not only to the cause but also to other believers in that cause.

So where do you find yourself along that spectrum? When you examine both your checkbook and your calendar, do you discern an order of priorities and commitments?