Who Moved My Culture?

We know culture is a moving target.  Some shifts we see, others are not so noticeable.  One shift that has happened subtly is a result of the manufacturing shift of the U.S.  To get my thought across you have to endure a small history lesson.  (I love history, but for those who do not….sorry.)

Since the industrial revolution until recently, the U.S. was primarily a manufacturing nation.  Factories and assembly lines ran the country and our culture. We were a nation of manufacturers.  One of the many impacts of this environment was a culture dominated by left-brain work habits.  The work was logical, sequential and it looked at the parts more than the whole. Assembly lines tend to be just that, lines.  Work was linear and that impacted our thinking.  During the peak of the industrial revolution the linear way of thinking shaped western culture. 

Many corporations and organizations in turn created structures very ‘left-brain’ oriented.  Even the U.S. church set itself up this way.  Sunday school curriculum, board meetings and etc. were mainly set up the same way.  Funding was even all done by and large the same way.  In order for these systems to work well they needed to be interchangeable, so similarity in function was key.  US automakers perfected this. Once something succeeded we mass produced it.  The US church even tried this by attempting to mass produce church growth strategies.

Then things changed.  In the past several years we have seen the shift from the US being a manufacturing country to a service based country.  We sell and fix items manufactured in other regions. This shift has subtly changed the work environment from the sequential and linear focus on parts to a more synthesizing and cyclical view of the whole. In other words, we have experienced a shift from a left-brain culture to what is becoming a right-brain culture. One is not better than the other, but they are different.  We need to see the difference and not be naïve to the impact it has.

Transformational Giving has principles based in age old truths that transcend culture.  However, the strategies of implantation may vary based on culture. So what about TG can be maximized in the upcoming right-brain culture? 

• TG emphasizes the role of the champion over the role of the organization.  This links well with synthesized thinking versus sequential thinking.

• TG emphasizes the role of the champion as a part of the whole.  This links well with the right-brain desire to be holistic and not simply think that when my part is done the project is finished for me.

• TG emphasizes the role of the champion to influence others for the cause.  This links well with cyclical thinking as opposed to linear thinking.

• TG emphasizes the responsibility of the champion to use their gifts.  This links well in the move from assembly line and cookie cutter thinking to being creative and using personal giftedness for the cause.

There are several more ways TG can be maximized in this cultural shift.  What are some you can think of? Are some of our communication and fund-raising styles no longer suited to the current culture?

Can the Sales Pitch

I am on an email list that sends me very helpful teachings called McKaughan Musing.  I wish I could provide the link, but after days of trying, I am having technical difficulty.  So I will cut and paste.  These musings are from http://www.missionexus.org/, but I cannot get you to the direct link to the article I am quoting.

For the February 2013 edition the focus is Marketing vs. Sales.  McKaughan says this,

 I was re-reading a book on Peter Drucker, who was my generation’s leadership and management Guru. (A Class with Drucker by William Cohen) I came to a chapter on Marketing and Sales and it got me thinking.

   For Drucker, marketing was central to strategically leading any organization. Sales, on the other hand, was merely a second or third tier tactical issue

   To Drucker, the clear distinction between marketing and sales was that in marketing you found out what your customer wanted and then you built that into your product. Since what you produced was what was wanted or needed, a well- designed and carefully manufactured product hardly needed to be sold. What you produced met the customer’s needs and desires. Sales on the other hand had to do with pushing things on people where there was little intrinsic need or desire. Selling had to do with the creating or manipulating need or desire. According to Drucker, sales dealt with tactics, not strategy. Strategy always trumps tactics. If your strategy is wrong, your tactics will never lead to success.

Transformational Giving is about principles that guide our strategy, which in turn will guide our ‘tactics’.  Wrong strategy leads to wrong tactics. 

Could it be that the reason the listener often hears our fund raising presentation as ‘begging’ is because we are using tactics built on poor strategy?

McKaughan strikes on a truth Drucker taught that is core to TG.  "To Drucker, the clear distinction between marketing and sales was that in marketing you found out what your customer wanted and then you built that into your product."  The teaching we give in the migration of the champion (donor) is to find out what God is doing in their life.  This strategy is built on principle #4 in the 10 principles of TG.  Principle 4: A champion connects with an organization for the purpose of enhancing their mutual impact on the cause, not only to support the organization’s impact on the cause.

It is about the champion’s impact not ours.  So it is about the champion and what she needs, not my need for their funds.  Then as Drucker said, “Since what you produced was what was wanted or needed, a well- designed and carefully manufactured product hardly needed to be sold.”  So if your ministry is designed to fill the gap God has placed in someone’s life (i.e. their need) then God will go before you and the need you present meets the champion’s need not just yours.  In this case it will hardly need to be “sold”.

Let’s take helping orphans as an example.  You are trying to raise money for your orphanage. So the tactics could be to show starving, lonely children.  The tactic being, show the kids and the funds will come.  I talked with a group that even flew the kids from a Majority World Culture to the states and paraded them to churches to raise money.  It worked, short-term. The problem was, in two years they had lost momentum.  They could not sustain the sympathy.  So they were trying to find a new group of kids to fly to the states for another ‘tour’.

But if raising money for orphans is not just about you or the kids, but also the giver and his need, how would this change the tactic?  Does the Bible not tell us to take care of the orphan?  Is this need being meet by the local church or the members sitting in the church that day?  The ministry to orphans is not just about the kids, it is also about the listener’s need to answer the call of God to serve children.  So now the strategy changes to reflect the biblical need of the believer to get involved in the lives of orphans.  It moves to an all-encompassing need.  The children have needs, the agency designed to reach them has needs, and the listener has a need to obey the command of God to serve. 

Now giving is fulfilling the champion’s need to obey and be a part of ministry.  The strategy moves from closing the deal to get the sale, to meeting the need of all involved.  We have moved from a transactional exchange to lives being transformed. The giver is now as blessed as the receiver. 

Opening Up

This post is a follow up of the post on April 11, 2012 regarding the access of information available to our champions. A result of all this information being available we looked at the fact that the ministry agency/ church, now must put the information into context rather than just add more information to the pile.

The result of information being accessible is a desire (spoken or unspoken) of those who come to the church or the agency in order to serve to be part of an open system. So this begs the question, what is an open system?

For starters it turns the ‘seating arrangement’ around so that now the champion/donor/volunteer is the ‘performer’. Our friend Eric Foley describes it as allowing the champion to be on stage not the agency. So the focus changes from us to them.

An open system demands cooperation rather than exclusion.

An open system of ministry integrates the lay worker and professional worker in a way the recipients may not see the difference.

An open system is one of partnership not individualism.

I have grown up in systems that are not only closed systems, but also teach close systems. The issue is we live in a world that longs for open systems. It is not an easy switch but it must be made. Thankfully, in my limited experience, I am seeing many ministries I work with and several around me see the value of opening the ministry system to be inclusive and cooperative.

You know when Guttenberg printed the Bible the Church was forced into rethinking the dispersing of God’s Word. No longer did just the priest have the Bible. The Bible could now be in the hands of the lay person and they could gain knowledge without the Church. I am sure that was a scary shift for every priest. But who wants to go back to that. Praise the Lord we all have access to God’s Word.

Let’s see the shift in today’s information age with excitement not with fear. If we allow our ministry to shift from a close system were just the ‘pros’ do the work to an open system, we can be part of this new era of a ministry reformation.

What would an open system look like for your ministry?

Safety Tested

In college I had a friend with a Volvo. Honestly, it was an ugly car, but his parents got it for him because it was the safest. Personally I would rather have a sports car than a safe car. Sports cars are good looking, safe cars, well, are not. Why does safe have to be ugly? I want both safe and good looking.

TG is both. It is good looking and safety approved. Let me explain.


What happens to giving when the economy crashes? We assume giving crashes too. But does it have to?

What if the champion’s giving is because they see the outreach as his or her own and not yours? For example let’s say the champion sees feeding the homeless as her own responsibility not the local rescue mission’s responsibility. The champion needs the local rescue mission to get the meals out, after all not many homes are equipped to feed a few hundred people a day. But the drive of the ministry is as much the champion’s as it is the rescue mission.
Therefore when the economy crashes the champion keeps giving because it is his call, her ministry. The ministry is a part of who they are because of what God does in the champion’s life through obedience. It is seen as the champion as a shared ministry.


When giving is a result of shared ministry it transforms the champion as much, if not more than the agency, mission, church etc. This is the ‘good looking’ part of TG. So when a champion is looking for a giving model to test drive, TG catches his eye like the sports car catches my eye. But TG is also safe in that it depends on God and His provision and is not dependent on the stock market or external economic influence.

TG is safety tested, because it works regardless. Multiple stories are out there of champions who give even in tough times not because the giving is done out of a disposable income, but because it is done in obedience to God. This is why it is important to build your giving on TG and why TG needs taught.

Eric Foley calls this ‘recession proof’ giving. I like that. My bank cannot even offer recession proof guarantees.

Leadership and Giving

Here is a question that was posed to leaders that is critical for every leader to answer: “If I follow you will I find Christ at the end?” Great question!!

Now, take this question and apply it to your fund raising strategy. I think we will find that the answer is not found in a transactional/traditional fund raising mindset. Let’s take the principle behind this question and phrase it in a way the champion might ask you about your ministry.

If I give to your ministry will the gift lead to Christ?

Think about this for a moment. Does the giver’s investment in your ministry change them, or does it just get you funded. I believe every gift has the potential to change the giver that is how God works. But think how much more we could show Christ if we were intentional about the gifts doing more than simply funding the ministry. What if we built a strategy that treats each gift as part of the givers discipleship journey, keeping in mind that at the end of the disciple journey the purpose is to see Christ?

All of our ministry’s have the goal that the funds received are used to advance the Kingdom of Christ for the ‘receivers’. But as leaders we are also responsible to help the donor see Christ as well. Leaders can help donors become champions, and help champions see the power of God through giving. In giving the champion is being like Christ.

We can help champions see that they reflect Christ through their gift. When this happens we will see the gift multiply (perhaps not financially) because when Christ is reflected we reach the goal of the showing people Christ. So leadership and giving must be linked. We not only lead our staffs and the recipients of our outreach, but we must also lead the donor. Christ-like leadership leads to Him and so too does Christ-like giving.