Vocations Empowered for the Common Good

This morning’s speaker at Grace Brethren Church Long Beach, Dr. Steven Garber, founder and principal of the Washington Institute on Faith, Vocation and Culture spoke on being stewards of our common grace for the common good.  His comments related to how the grace of God in a life committed to Him can impact the world for the Kingdom.  Our vocations, when empowered by God’s grace, fulfill the Church’s responsibility to impact the Kingdom life here and now, not just in the hereafter—socially, politically, and economically.  This discussion recalled my studies at Fuller on social advocacy and in particular one particularly powerful statement by Dallas Willard which gave credence to thoughts I’d had on charitable programs.

Willard makes a similar point to Garber’s in The Spirit of the Disciplines that “charity and social welfare programs, while good and clearly our duty, cannot even begin to fulfill our responsibility as children of the light to a needy world.”  He then boldly calls upon the people of God to “assume the responsibility, under God and by his power, of owning and directing the world’s wealth and goods” (1988:202).  He points out that by doing so, with Christ, the church would be able to reduce the causes of poverty.

That is a level of stewardship the church has not attempted on such a large scale—and likely will not—without realizing that the sacred calling of God is not just within the church, but in all vocations and careers. He continues the challenge by declaring the church should commission men and women into “farming, industry, law, education, banking, and journalism with the same zeal previously given to evangelism and missionary work” (1988:214).

Once the people of God are involved as stewards in influencing the marketplace for the community’s good, they can have a hand in advising public agencies in serving the truly needy.  This culminates in the people of God showing how the church “enters into full participation in the rule of God where they are” (1988:218).  That is true stewardship of all that God has made and put under our authority, including social service to those in need.  Religious control of social functions, as it has been in the past, can be seen as an authentic Christian response to need.  P. Beyer, in Religion and Globalization states that this validates the Christian message (1994:197).

By becoming stewards of God’s love and compassion through charity, the church becomes a centripetal force in the world.  Serving societal needs as part of the soteriological effort of the church is the greatest stewardship of all God’s resources, and becomes the attracting light the world seeks.  In the words of Bernhard W. Anderson, “The nations are attracted to Zion, the spiritual center, because the teaching that goes forth from that source appeals to the deeper human longings for šālom (peace, welfare).  Mission is at its best when it brings something to a people that respond to their deepest desire and quest” (2006:116).

• Beyer, P. Religion and Globalization. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1994.
• Okoye, James. Israel and the Nations: A Mission Theology of the Old Testament. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2006. 
• Willard, Dallas. The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives. New York: HarperCollins, 1988.

Leveraging the Passion of our Emerging Leadership in Philanthropy

Just a year ago in an article discussing the changing culture of nonprofits and the failing economy, I examined the decline of the nonprofit sector due to its failure of facing the realities of a changing market and demographic.* Following this marked decline, in just a few years we have seen an increasing flow of new blood in the sector . . . young leaders (I dislike tagging them “millennial”) are bringing a new passion and desire to impact their society.  

To this aging Boomer, having served most of my vocation in nonprofits, this brings a surprising feeling of promise and a desire to see them become empowered in a way my generation failed to realize through our efforts in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

This upwelling of philanthropic youth is more than evident here at the 50th International Conference of Fundraising in San Diego. The San Diego Convention Center is teeming with young people, wherein such a conference a decade ago would have witnessed an older attendee. In a review class for the CFRE – a certification for those with fundraising experience – there were quite a few young people who obviously did not bring experience of the level normally expected to such a class. I propose that not a few of them thought some of the material and processes discussed a bit mechanistic and antiquated. Additionally, the crowd was standing room only and overflowing the room of the First Timers orientation meeting.  This leads me to wonder what is the impetus of these new fundraisers? 

For those of us who have long been involved in nonprofit fund development, we may recognize the surge of funds now flowing from our generation’s estates, and how best to help divert them from the government and invest in charitable efforts. I sense, however, that the new conference attendees are not so much interested in investing these funds, but rather investing themselves in the empowerment of others. They recognize the weakness of government and institutions to meet the growing gap in services and bring a new paradigm to the task.

While wanting to encourage and empower this new generation, we need to sensitively guide them and their enthusiasm into this sector. Just as the ‘90s saw a growth of nonprofits that was impossible to properly fund, we can allow them to be change agents within existing organizations, as well as lead collaborations, acquisitions, and mergers which will increase capacity, reduce duplications, and bring a new face and paradigm to, not just the nonprofit sector, but to the for-profit sector and world-wide commerce as well.

How we assist, educate, encourage and empower this emerging leadership will be the fulcrum on which their impact is leveraged.  

http://ym.christianleadershipalliance.org/?CriticalShift

Kodak's failure was in their contentment with the status quo

Eastman Kodak was one of the best for-profit companies I have ever worked for. It was first to develop digital imaging capture techniques . . . but that was at the height of the film business and they were fat and happy, sitting on top of their bankroll and the industry. Failing to grab an opportunity was their downfall. At the core was the limited vision of the leadership.

Successful companies act strategically in down times in preparation for the upswing - lest they lose their edge and miss an opportunity. A good blog from David Curry on this: http://t.co/gYcpCluJ

A lesson for nonprofits: If you have reserves to expand and lay the groundwork for additional services - especially when the need is great, and your programs are successful - don't hesitate to use those resources. Perhaps that's why God provided them in the first place.

How I Feel About the Occupy Movement with a View of the Homeless

I have been trying to figure out how I feel about the Occupy Movement. It is difficult to find out what they are really about, given the hype and coverage that is out there. Try Google-ing “What does OWS want?” and one will find myriad results:

The results include the satirical and engage in slapstick humor (warning: language)

More seriously, an early report from ABC gives a visual walk-through of an OWS encampment “headquarters.”

A Declaration issued Sept 29th focuses exclusively upon corporations (which they see supported by Wall Street). NYCGA

Of note to me is their charge that corporations are holding students hostage through student loan debt, for which they voluntarily applied (rather than earning and paying for their degree over time as I did), as well as declaring that higher education – sans student loans, and perhaps tuition itself – is a human right.

What brought the somewhat generic mindset of this group home to me, within my sphere of influence, was a voicemail left by a self-proclaimed “leader” of the Occupy Long Beach group camping out in the same space as the chronic homeless in Lincoln Park. He wanted me as a service provider and leader to join them in seeking to make Long Beach more “homeless friendly.” I found this invitation rather arrogant and ill-informed, as all those who he was contacting have been actively addressing homeless issues for some time. His Johnny-come-lately invitation was an affront to all the efforts many have been putting into this issue . . . and to think he believes he can waltz in and experience an instant solidarity with the plight of those with whom he has been camping out for a few days . . . has he been smoking our infamous medipot?

This presents an interesting dichotomy, as some OWS camps are ironically having problems with sharing their food with the "professional homeless" who are "mooching" as reported by the Huffington Post: HUFF and New York Post: NYPOST

While another blog discusses the issues related to living on the street OWSers are learning by the seat-of-their-pants (and expecting it to be provided for them?): REALITY

I informed him that making that lifestyle friendlier will not necessarily help in ending their plight, but serve to enable it – thus harming rather than helping the individual and community. In my return voicemail I explained the efforts of many in the homeless issues and invited him to join with us through the Homeless Coalition, Kingdom Causes, the Rescue Mission and other agencies, in providing realistic paths out of the parks, and off the streets. That making the parks more inviting and comfortable for homeless persons is not the answer – as that only enables people to remain in that state.

My opinion may change as I hear more – and see some responsible effort on their part; but as I have perused the disconnected rhetoric being reported as the causes célèbres of the Occupy movements across the country, I doubt seriously if many of these demonstrators have any foundational – or even formative – ideology or realistic and practical answers to the reality of even just one demographic they may feel a solidarity with . . . the homeless – as they occupy the same ground of our urban centers. Perhaps a few weeks on the streets will help them realize how well they actually have it in this country of unlimited dreams and opportunity.

Benevolence vs. Stewardship

Prof. Tom Crisp of Biola spoke at Grace LB on proper benevolence in light of Jesus’ teaching. It provided thought for my thesis on Stewardship. How do we steward wealth? We all know we should spend less and give more . . . But who is teaching the church that we have a responsibility and duty to appropriately obtain, possess, and direct wealth in a manner that causes personal, community and global flourishing? Which is easier or more biblical . . . to be thrifty and give to charity, or become a missional steward of all of life? Is asceticism and charitable benevolence the highest spiritual discipline? Or could perhaps Dallas Willard be on to something when he says, ". . . understanding that possession and right rule over material wealth is a spiritual service of the highest order." (1988: 203) Powerful. But equally challenging is that those who do so, have the right and duty to speak into the social, economic, and political processes in order to steward the appropriate use of the world's wealth and goods for the lessening of the need for that benevolence. Is what you practice benevolence or stewardship?

A Measured Response to Poverty and Need

“ . . . for man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty.” – John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address Jan 8, 1961.

Capitalistic business practices have been considered both the cause and the cure for our nation’s poor. Peter L. Berger stated in The Capitalist Revolution: “The early period of industrial capitalism in England, and probably the other Western countries, exacted considerable human costs, if not the actual decline in material living standards then in social and cultural dislocation.”

Although industrialism saw great strides in personal and national wealth, the cost was admittedly paid by the most fragile of society. However, many of those who benefited the most from that era were also those who planted the seeds of the modern philanthropic effort.

“I believe in living wages – I do not believe in charity. I believe we should all be producers.” So declared automaker Henry Ford in 1924. Ford routinely hired the disabled; in 1919 nearly 20 percent of his workforce had some form of disability. He made positions available to those others considered hopeless and assisted them to become productive.

His view of charitable organizations was that they tended to be just “repair stations” along side of “broken tracks.” To him the thought of just giving to the poor without “fixing the broken track” was irresponsible.

At 33 years of age, industrialist Andrew Carnegie’s goal was to live on a minimal amount of his income and give the remainder for benevolent purposes – “Beyond this never earn, make no effort to increase fortune, but spend the surplus each year for benevolent purposes.” He thought it a disgrace for one to die rich.

What lessons can we learn from these successful philanthropic industrialists?

In the recent past, several area businessmen have contacted me for counsel – they were attempting to help individuals they had met through their respective homeless situations. Like Ford and Carnegie, they both wanted to assist the needy through to successful self-directed living – by giving “a hand up”; they were not satisfied to just give them an easy hand-out.

I initially warned both that they needed to watch out that their heart did not get bruised as they allowed themselves to reach out and get deeply involved with another person’s life situation. Many times, even those of us in our type of service agency get drawn-in by the most fervent of appeals by those in need – and later discover a sham. I was impressed at the effort and funds these men expended in an attempt at reconciling these needy back to the community.

In Long Beach, we have our share of homeless and needy men, women, and families. It is the Rescue Mission’s goal to identify those who desire and are ready for outside influence in their life situations. That desire is as important to us as it is to the lifeguard who waits for the precise moment to safely reach out and grab someone drowning. Grasping a moment too early – before someone has given up – can lead to drastic results; giving the wrong kind of help can be as harmful – for both parties.

It is the ethical man’s desire to help others in need, especially when it confronts them head-on – as with the businessmen who contacted me. But what is our responsibility to others? How much of our resources can we put into solving the problems around us? And what of the larger issues facing the world?

As Carnegie, I believe that after providing for the needs of our family, we are to look out for the interests of others. Self, family, local communities and agencies, and then, only if all else fails, the government . . . the line of responsibility must begin at the local level, not from the federal. All elements of society must be brought to bear on issues not readily attainable at the local level.

At the Long Beach Rescue Mission, we endeavor to serve the needs of the needy through the partnership of individuals, churches, businesses, and local agencies. We attempt to match the needs of people first to family members – sometimes supplying bus fare to get back to a supportive family network. Next, we turn to local non-government organizations (NGO’s) and then, if necessary, to county and state agencies.

Following a course that initially includes related family members is difficult, as the needy have many issues to deal with and pride gets in the way. In many cases, the needy have worn their family out or burned the bridges behind them. A few years ago, I spoke with a retired Army Paratrooper who served in Vietnam. He had hip problems and ‘lived’ in a nearby lot on a discarded mattress. He somehow acquired a wheelchair, in which he got around. I was able to get some history from him that revealed facts of some extended family in the tri-cities area of east Tennessee. He staunchly refused further probes of people I might contact for him – who might be able to take him in. “I’m not asking for help – I can get by myself,” was his constant refrain.

But local law enforcement has to deal with such persons, as complaints come in from local businesses, schools, and neighbors. Where are these people to go and how are we to provide for the neediest?

Even now, the Mission is stretched to the limit and has no room for many who come by seeking help. Due to NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitudes in many of our cities, where can these services best be located? We need to research Long Beach NGO’s, faith-based organizations, what effect the needy have on the local business climate, and how businesses can affect a change in the broader community through partnership with NGO’s.

As those industrialists who pioneered the modern philanthropic institutions did, we in the business world need to realize our responsibility to make a difference in the world around us – to leave it a better place – not just leave our wealth, but to build true wealth through people.

“For the poor will be always with you.” – Jesus Christ, Matthew 26:11