The Problems of Institutional Giving
April 3rd, 2006 | Published in Economics, Essays, Religion | 6 Comments
The current NAMB spending report controversy made me reflect more on the problems of institutionalized giving. When we give money to an individual person who is active in a cause, we can usually trust that the money will be put to good use (especially if we know them). However, when we give to an institution, there is a much higher likelihood that it will be used in ways the giver would not approve of — and will never know of. For example, here are two notable items in the NAMB report:
- the expenditure of $1 million on the creation of a high-tech, three-dimensional Vision Center in NAMB’s lobby in 1999, which was closed four years later due to lack of use; and the spending of another $1 million to redesign the space into a high-tech, state-of-the-art conference center
- $3,771 spent on a four-day trip to England so Reccord and his wife, Cheryl, could attend a premier of The Chronicles of Narnia.
Individuals and churches who give to the NAMB should be disappointed with spending like that. However, they should not be surprised. This is typical spending for many non-profit institutions.
Americans have more money than we know what to do with. So we give it to institutions and think we are doing something. Starving kids in Africa? Give money. Teen pregnancy center? Give money. Hurricane victims? Give money. But as Wendell Berry has said, giving is not doing. Giving to a large organization and hoping that most of your money will go to the cause is similar to hoping that most of your tax money will go to your local schools.
This is because institutions are like government. They get bigger, but they rarely get smaller. The budgets get bigger. The staff gets bigger. The salaries get bigger. The buildings get bigger and more numerous. Rarely does an institution seek to simplify and reduce budgets and spending — and when they do, they often reduce the right things to pay for the wrong things (like buying new technology when what they have works fine).
What can we do about this? One way is to reduce giving to large institutions. My initial thoughts are that we should (1) strive to do what we can ourselves, in our own way and (2) when we see a need that we can do something about, fulfill it through individual people. For instance, it is better to give to a missionary on the field instead of to a large missionary corporation organization. There is more of a chance it will be used for the right purposes and go to the actual cause.
April 4th, 2006 at 9:04 am (#)
It’s amazing how something that starts with such pure intentions can over time become tainted with our personal desires for greed and power — even within the Church. And if I honestly evaluated my heart I can’t say I would do any better on my own. Thank the Lord we have a Savior who strengthens and guides us in all circumstances.
April 4th, 2006 at 9:55 am (#)
As a Southern Baptist, I was upset by the NAMB report. But I think that the solution is to make an organization like NAMB more accountable, not to forsake large institutions altogether. Before Southern Baptists began the cooperative approach to missions, foreign missionaries frequently had to return to the United States to beg for money. Now that we have the world’s largest international missions organization, our missionaries can focus on their ministry instead of worrying about money. Southern Baptists have sent out a lot more missionaries ever since they began forming large mission organizations such as NAMB and IMB.
April 4th, 2006 at 10:21 am (#)
I’m not necessarily saying we should “forsake large institutions altogether” (although I admit I think it a rather good idea). But I am saying that individuals can often be more effective and thrifty than large organizations. It’s like saying that instead of making the government smaller, we need more accountability. Smaller would be best, both would be better. But I think smaller is often inherently more accountable.
I would much rather my money go to an individual missionary than NAMB. I also do not think missionaries should be dependent on organizations for their complete support. Being a “tentmaker” seems very biblical and wise to me.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:02 pm (#)
As a NAMB trustee, I want you to know that we hear you and that we share your desire to hold the agency accountable. Rather than abandoning ship, pray for us as we seek to turn the ship the right direction.
Whereas large organizations can go awry, and our task force report shows that some things did, large organizations also have to be more accountable because of their large number of constituents. This forces the pendulum to swing back, or the organization will lose its base of support.
In the long run, Southern Baptist are able to do more for missions by giving collectively. It is an efficient way to do missions. That’s why other organizations like the United Way have copied our model of the Cooperative Program.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:37 pm (#)
I am a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and several students here and professors have related that during the “Baptist Reformation” or “Conservative Resurgence,” however it is to be named, many liberal and moderates went to NAMB and IMB to “hide” there in mid-level positions. I have personal relationships with people that have severed ties with NAMB due to theological differences, an example of which is a man who was let go because NAMB “didn’t see a need to mix prayer with evangelism” (his words, not mine).
In my opinion, NAMB needs stricter SBC supervision, and not just in fiscal matters.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:46 pm (#)
I have been doing a lot of reading about all this and quite frankly am getting sick over the SBC, of which I am a part of. The desperate plea above for us not to jump ship is stupid. I say jump.