It was a rough summer. Fighting in Russia and Ukraine, Syria, Palestine and Israel, another Aboriginal woman, teenager Tina Fontaine, murdered, and, most recently, Rotherham, the small town just north of Sheffield, England, where it has emerged that more that 1,400 young girls were groomed, exploited and raped by a group of men for several years. Depressingly grim doesn’t begin to describe it all.
In the midst of this dark news that weighed heavily on our souls, the ice bucket challenge, raising awareness and funds for ALS, was a cooling relief.
The sheer joy folks got out of doing something silly in order to show solidarity with friends and families of those afflicted with a profoundly wretched disease like ALS, was truly wonderful.
But once the challenge took off and started garnering not only attention but serious money, questions and hackles were raised.
Some people wondered if it was a good use of water. Others were angry because they believed money was being diverted from other causes—causes they thought were more important.
It’s disappointing when people become angry over the success of something that will help so many people. What is disturbing, though, is when the underlying misunderstandings are allowed to go uncorrected.
The biggest mistake is believing that donations to one charitable cause divert donations from other causes. It’s an understandable quick reaction, but it is wrong. The philanthropic community, which does sophisticated donor research, has shown time after time that this is not the case.
When you stop to think about it, it makes sense. Donor dollars come primarily from discretionary spending. Christian stewardship is all about changing that, but nevertheless, it’s still the case.
Unlike basic necessities—which may come from a finite pool of money, especially for retirees on fixed income—charitable donations come from what’s left over. And surveys consistently show that if people are moved to support a cause, they will not do so at the expense of another cause they believe in.
For sure, they may drop some causes. But that’s because they have decided to shift their giving for other reasons—maybe they think they’ve given enough to a charity or it doesn’t need their support anymore. But not because they gave to another charity already.
I’ve run across this misconception more than once in the church. People are concerned that anything that distracts members giving to some ministry other than their own congregation, for instance, might result in lower revenue.
Understandable, no doubt, but misplaced.
For sure, declining enrollment and revenue are a concern, but Canadian Christians are abundantly blessed beyond measure.
Let’s ask the more challenging and central question: What does God want us to do?
Where is God in this conversation, at home, at session or at General Assembly?
Is maintaining churches with dwindling congregations how God wants us to proclaim His love? We’re not called to build edifices or maintain them—beautiful as they may be. We are called to be in a closer relationship with God and to help others along the Way.
