{"id":16366,"date":"2018-02-08T17:49:07","date_gmt":"2018-02-09T01:49:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=16366"},"modified":"2018-02-08T17:49:07","modified_gmt":"2018-02-09T01:49:07","slug":"an-upside-down-philanthropy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/an-upside-down-philanthropy\/","title":{"rendered":"An upside-down philanthropy"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been working professionally in Christian philanthropy for eighteen years.\u00a0 As time has passed, I\u2019ve been increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo of how high net worth North American Christians practice giving. I have a growing conviction that the way we practice Christian philanthropy is entangled with a consumer cultural orientation, and that it must detach itself from standard approaches in secular philanthropy. But how?\u00a0 Vincent Miller\u2019s Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in a Consumer Culture<\/em> has provided a solid framework for grappling with how one can practice the art of giving well.<\/p>\n

We are enmeshed in a consumer culture that deeply infects our approach to life. Miller identifies the problem: \u201cRather than a conflict between cultures, we face a cultural infrastructure that is capable of absorbing all other cultures as \u201ccontent\u201d to be commodified, distributed, and consumed. This changes our relationship to religious beliefs and practices profoundly.\u201d[1]<\/a> This cultural infrastructure also impacts philanthropy. Philanthropists consume by reducing giving to trendy, change-the-world projects that feed our egos, flattening the beauty of generosity to transactional projects with measurable outcomes.<\/p>\n

Within late capitalism, philanthropy has become professionalized. Grants become commodities, and the philanthropist grows increasingly disconnected from both the origin of the wealth and the holistic impact it can offer communities in need. Additionally, and this is critical, the philanthropist loses the ability to be transformed by the sacrament of the gift.<\/p>\n

In E.M. Conradie\u2019s review of Miller\u2019s book, he identifies that a mentality that commodifies will lead to \u201cshallow engagement\u201d[2]<\/a>. Just as consumers consume food from nowhere and wear clothes made by no one[3]<\/a>, we give away wealth we didn\u2019t earn to people we don\u2019t know and remain stubbornly unchanged by the suffering of the world. This profound disconnection is a deep ailment which must be addressed by the transformative power of Christ. For millennials who will inherit the responsibility of Christian philanthropy from their parents, this question must be tackled. Shallow engagement is a waste of an opportunity, a sad casting of pearls before swine.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

The time is right for a new approach thanks to the kairos<\/em> moment in which we live. As we learned through the writings of Bebbington and Erdozain, there are gifts to be gained from the secularization of our landscape. Rather than lament the negative impact of secularity as do the culture warriors, a space is created where a new type of philanthropy can be birthed. Miller states,<\/p>\n

\u201cSecularization signals the end\u2026 of the highly institutionalized attempt to embody the response that was the church of Christendom\u2026. A hierarchically organized Christendom is replaced with the myriad activities of countless believers articulating their beliefs through the workings of bricolage, rupturing established unities, transgressing conventional limits, bringing together what society assumes must be kept separate, for example, rejecting a safe middle-class existence, crossing class boundaries, working with outcasts for their civil rights<\/em>.\u201d (Italics mine).[5]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

With this new space comes a new generation that is ready to resist a culture of commodification. \u201c[A]ll this materialism and consumption have given rise to a \u201cpostmaterialist\u201d culture. Growing up in an era of abundance, many members of this generation now seek deeper spiritual and communal sources of fulfillment.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

To steward religion and ensure that it is not corrupted by capitalism, Miller encourages tactical practices which are carried out on the ground.[7]<\/a> We can apply the same principles to millennials who engage in philanthropy. It\u2019s an upside-down approach; let me describe some of its features:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Upside-down philanthropy must be rooted in place<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Vincent Miller, in an article in America<\/em> on \u201cThe Geography of Mercy\u201d, cites the example of the Good Samaritan. \u201cThe parable presumes a very specific moral geography where knowledge of need and the ability to address it are bound together by space, creating a moral obligation amid serious risk\u2026. The moral and theological question is whether we will “show mercy” or “pass by the other side.”\u201d[8]<\/a> Traditional philanthropy is often detached from place; millennials want to recover it being situated in a known, lived place.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Upside-down philanthropy must encounter pain<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The problem of late capitalism is that suffering is abstracted. Miller says the news media is a \u201cmarketer of intensities, of which the suffering other is a best selling variety.\u201d[9]<\/a> This often drives much typical philanthropy today. However, embracing a philanthropy that feels pain means leaving one\u2019s comfort, risk-averse life. For millennials, philanthropy can be a type of sacrament, a real place of encounter with God and His grace despite the risks. Sacramentality counters the abstracting that occurs in a capitalist system.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Upside-down philanthropy must collaborate<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        One of the unexpected realities of extreme wealth is its isolating nature. The wealthy don\u2019t need to collaborate \u2013 they can be lone rangers in their philanthropic approaches to changing the world. Miller cites one of the challenges of late capitalism is the fragmentation of society; people are lonely in their single-family homes[10]<\/a>. Millennials resist this and lean into collaborative approaches.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Upside down philanthropy clings to the margins<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Wealth means power, and power and control are most usually situated at the centre. But the poor and powerless \u2013 those who benefit from philanthropy \u2013 live on the fringes. Miller critiques this leaning into comfort: \u201c[W]e face a domesticated Christianity where the forms of apocalyptic longing have been co-opted into the service of inciting consumer desire.\u00a0 In this form of bourgeois religion, the more properly apocalyptic needs of the poor and oppressed are not viewed with distaste and horror for challenging the illusory justice of the status quo.\u00a0 They lose their power to shock us.\u201d[11]<\/a> We decided to move from Toronto to a small New Brunswick town to situate the ministry of philanthropy within a context where it can be shaped by walking alongside those who are marginalized.\u00a0 Millennials, as well, will identify with this way of coming alongside.<\/p>\n

          Our commodified realities today don\u2019t mean the end of the kingdom of God transforming all of creation. Faith will be cultivated and begin to thrive in landscapes where we tactically practice new styles of philanthropy for our communities.\u00a0\u00a0This place is rooted on the margin, acknowledges and enters into suffering, discovers healing and transformation, and recognizes the value and need for community. Sing with Leonard Cohen this song:<\/p>\n