The Most Productive Form of Fundraising

June 21, 2017Blog

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard negative comments about fundraising. “I hate fundraising; I just really don’t like asking for money; fundraising makes me uncomfortable.”

Of course, very few people who say these things have actually been involved in a well-planned fundraising campaign. In the coming weeks we’ll try to provide some basics of fundraising and also try to deal with some common fears.

However, even before we get into, “techniques” I want to address a fundamental question. Though it’s most important to success, it is often is neglected. Simply stated, which method yields the best results?

Why Face-To-Face Asks are Superior

Many nonprofit organizations and boards prefer events, direct mail or even telephone solicitations over making direct face-to-face asks. Despite the fact that the aforementioned methods are costly, labor intensive and less productive, nonprofits and their volunteers continue to rely on them. Therefore, I thought we’d begin our series by looking at each method.

Direct Mail and Phone-a-thon Fundraising

In direct mail good response rates are typically 1%-3%, and 8-9% for house renewals. Phone-a-thons are more effective if people answer. In fact, a Showcase of Fundraising Innovation/Inspiration (Sofii) report cites a 38% response rate for telephone upgrade campaigns (vs. 4% in direct mail upgrades).

However, that doesn’t consider what it costs. In fact, direct mail is the most costly and least effective method of fundraising. Now I’m not suggesting that you drop it. On the contrary, direct mail also helps acquire new donors, renew or upgrade old ones, enhance brand recognition and increase visibility. It also can tell stories that demonstrate how you’re helping others, but it does have limitations.

Special Events Fundraising

Golf tournaments, auctions and galas can help, but you have to watch costs. While professionals suggest that they shouldn’t exceed 30%, in our capital campaign consulting we’ve seen them reach as high as 70%. And this doesn’t consider the labor-intensive nature of events. Still events raise organizational visibility and bring new people to the table.

Of course, well-balanced development programs include all of these methods and more.

Face-to-Face Fundraising

The operative word here is balanced. Often nonprofits employ plenty of the previous methods, but they neglect the most productive form of fundraising and that is face-to-face solicitations.

As fundraising consultants we often quote the statistic that 70% of the time a peer visits a peer this way, the answer is “yes”. Of course, it may not be at the same level you ask, but it’s usually “yes” at some level. Also, gifts are much larger in face-to-face visits than in any other form of fundraising.

Why People Fear Face-to-Face Visits

Fears generally come from one of 3 concerns. I’m afraid they’ll say “no”; I’m afraid they’ll get mad; or I’m afraid I’ll make a mistake. So what are the answers?

First, the reality is that 70% of the time the answer is “yes” and not “no”.

Second, in over 30 years of fundraising, I’ve only had one person get mad, and he later apologized. People are sometimes flattered, but they hardly ever get mad. In the one case where it did happen to me, I responded, “I’m not asking for myself. I’m asking for the kids who are being housed, fed and cared for here.

Third, no one is perfect. Whenever you initiate something new, you’re bound to make mistakes. In fact, Michael Jordan said that during his career he missed over 9,000 shots, lost 300 games and he’d been called on 26 times to make the final shot in a game and missed. Jordan noted that he failed over and over again and that’s why he succeeded.

Fundraising is the same; you simply get better with practice. In future blogs we’ll talk about some effective techniques for asking.

by Len Moisan

The Greatest Leader of All Time (Part 2)

June 6, 2017Blog

Last week we talked about the characteristics that make Jesus the greatest leader of all time. Specifically we mentioned that:

1. Jesus attracted and inspired others by casting a compelling vision and taking impressive actions.
2. Jesus believed in the potential of followers and He developed them, regardless of their backgrounds.
3. Jesus served His followers and
4. Jesus met crisis head on.

Now today I want to continue talking about characteristics that made Jesus a strong and successful leader.

5. Jesus was humble yet committed to the cause – In Philippians Paul challenges us to have the same mind that Jesus, the very equal of God, had. Of course, Paul tells us that Jesus was humble and He:

• Did not use His status with God, His divinity, for His own advantage.
• Instead He humbly became a man and a servant to others.
• He also humbly became obedient to the Father’s plan even to the point of death.

Lessons from Good to Great

In Good to Great (GTG) Jim Collins noted that the leaders of all (GTG) companies had what he called personal humility combined with an unwavering commitment to the mission.

This demonstrates a leadership commitment to achieving the mission and vision without it being about the leader. Jesus was not a self-promoter but a kingdom promoter. His leadership was about the mission and vision and not about Himself.

6. Jesus demonstrated His commitment to the mission, vision and people He led. In fact, so committed was Jesus to those things that He was willing to go to the cross and die for them.

In other words, Jesus walked the talk and proved His authenticity. How many leaders are willing to demonstrate anywhere near that level of commitment? Simply stated, when leaders walk the talk it inspires and moves people.

Jesus clearly demonstrated His commitment, not only in dying but also by keeping the promise that He’d be raised from the dead. It inspired others to follow. Consider that all of the apostles carried forward the mission and vision (the message of the Gospel) to others.  As a result, church growth exploded and all but one died for the cause.

7. Jesus built a team and then collaborated and empowered them to act. No doubt, before His death many people followed Jesus and were the beneficiaries of His leadership. However, He built a comparatively small inner circle (12) of collaborators that He mentored, empowered and encouraged to act.

For example, when the apostles brought Him the problem of feeding 5,000 people, Jesus told them they should give them something to eat. Even though they had no idea of how to do that, Jesus was preparing them to take action in faith on their own.

Similarly, in Mark 6: 7, Jesus sent His disciples out two-by-two to tell others about the kingdom, and He also gave them power and authority. Then, in John 14 He promises that they will do greater works than He has done. Finally, in Matthew 28 He encouraged them to go and make disciples of all nations baptizing and teaching them.

While working with clients as a fundraising consultant, I have often heard complaints that while people are given a job to do, they’re not given authority or they’re not empowered to do the job without gaining permission every step of the way.

By contrast, Jesus wasn’t afraid for His followers to achieve. In fact, He wanted and even encouraged them to achieve so the Gospel (His vision) would accomplish the mission of preaching and making disciples of the whole world. And He empowered them and gave them authority to do that very thing.

In modeling these characteristics of Jesus, followers of Christ can make a major step forward in becoming inspiring and productive leaders.

by Len Moisan

The Greatest Leader of All Time

May 30, 2017Blog

Who are the greatest leaders of all time? The Internet is replete with articles on the subject. In fact, a Google search yielded 22,400,000 sites. Not that I searched all of those sites, but the consensus among the ones I have read is that Jesus tops the list.

There are some essential characteristics that clearly set Jesus apart from other leaders, and I believe they all have to do with His power. In fact, so powerful was the work of Jesus during His lifetime that all of His disciples continued to preach His message, and all but one were martyred for the cause.

The Gospel continues to be preached today and continues to transform millions of lives for the better each year. So what was it about Jesus’ leadership that made Him so effective? Consider these characteristics:

1. Jesus attracted and inspired others by casting a compelling vision and taking impressive actions. Consider that He came to preach freedom from the bondage of sin with an abundant life in the kingdom of God. For believers this vision offered peace, hope and fulfillment both in this life and in the next.

He also backed up His words with action. We see Jesus feed 5,000 people miraculously and then says to His disciples, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry.”

Later Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead and then says, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die.”

To inspire others to follow, leaders must articulate a vision of what they believe individuals and organizations can become. Yet, they must also take visible action to back that vision, so people know they mean what they say.

2. Jesus believed in the potential of His followers and He developed them, regardless of their backgrounds. Andrew and Peter were rough fishermen, Matthew was a despised tax collector, Bartholomew was wealthy and of royal blood, Paul was a Jewish scholar. Jesus saw the potential in all of them.

 Despite their diverse backgrounds Jesus understood their potential and He taught them all to lead. Long after He ascended into heaven these followers preached, taught and cooperated in building on the work that Jesus started.

3. Jesus served His followers. At the Last Supper Jesus washed the feet of His disciples. He also fed them, healed them, taught them and ultimately died for them. He modeled a life of service that He wanted them to follow.

4. Jesus met crisis head on. He didn’t wilt or back off in the face of trouble. In fact, at times He even created crisis. He called the Pharisees hypocrites and a brood of vipers. When Peter tried to dissuade Him from going to Jerusalem, Jesus rebuked him directly.

Then, shortly after His triumphal entry, he overturned the tables of the moneychangers. After that, in the middle of a fight in the Garden, He didn’t run or hide. He rebuked Peter who had cut off someone’s ear and then He healed the ear. In crisis after crisis, Jesus never backed down. Instead, He intervened with words and actions that were both bold and wise.

Leaders are charged with a stewardship responsibility for organizations and their assets (which include its people). Delaying or even refusing to deal with crisis, puts the health of the organization in jeopardy and only delays the inevitable.

We’ll explore more about the leadership of Jesus in the next blog, but suffice it to say that His work on earth has clearly been powerful and enduring.

In addition to today’s post on leadership, we have helpful content on capital campaign consulting, nonprofit fundraising, strategic planning and more on our website at www.covenantgrouponline.com.

by Len Moisan

Covenants, Contracts and Leadership

May 19, 2017Blog

So how then, should we regard the contract vs. covenant discussion? Contractual expectations are clearly common in most organizations, so we can’t really shun the concept.Yet, it’s important also to realize that an overemphasis on contracts can sometimes detract from the good faith and spirit of trust that are central to building healthy and productive relationships. When contracts become overly legalistic, trust and cooperation can quickly evaporate and potential and productivity are diminished.

I saw a firsthand example of this when a nonprofit client of ours recently went through a national search for a CEO. After several rounds of interviews, one candidate emerged as the clear choice. Both the candidate and the Board members were excited about the potential, as each of the parties assumed the best intentions of the other. They simply had to work out the details of the agreement.

After lengthy discussions the contract was just about finalized. The candidate then chose to have his lawyer review the agreement further. He came back with several additional demands that extended the negotiations and required more concessions by the organization. When that happened the trust, good faith and goodwill began to fade. Even though he had clearly been the most qualified candidate, as the negotiations dragged on, the Board and staff began to question whether or not they could trust this candidate and decided to reopen the search. Eventually, they found another CEO who was almost as qualified but much less demanding.

Unfortunately, the first candidate missed the opportunity to work with a great group of people because he simply could not bring himself to trust them. The “basis of good faith” that we discussed in last week’s blog was missing. As a result, he lost credibility with the group because they suspected he was greedy and interested only in himself. On both sides trust and good will diminished, which caused irreparable damage. Without trust there can be no covenant.

In short, the dynamics, characteristics and results of contracts are quite different than those of covenants. However, since contractual relationships are so pervasive in our culture, covenants and contracts must coexist productively. Understanding and then using those cultural differences appropriately (contractual vs. covenantal) is really a difficult balancing act that requires unique leadership skills. Yet, being able to pull this off is at the heart of what helps leaders succeed.

However, before we even consider the differences between covenants and contracts, it’s important to understand that while contracts speak more to tasks and practices covenants speak more to relationships. Neither one is mutually exclusive. You just can’t build organizational relationships without also attending to individual practices and the tasks of productivity and profitability.

Therefore, the choice to create either a contractual or covenantal culture is evidenced in every day practice. If that practice prioritizes results through policy, rules, terms, tasks, competition, schedules and productivity over people then the culture is clearly a contractual one. By contrast, if that practice values results through people who are treated as trusted partners and team members then the culture is more covenantal.

That said, understanding the tendencies and differences of covenants and contracts helps leaders to enhance productivity and make informed decisions about how to lead. Too often would-be leaders hope to achieve the benefits of a covenant, but they do so within a contractual framework with contractual expectations and they fail. This matrix is intended to illustrate the differences between the two concepts and equip leaders to use them both effectively.

In addition to today’s post on covenants vs. contracts, we have helpful content on capital campaign consulting, nonprofit fundraising and church leadership consulting. Check out our website for blogs on these and other topics.

by Len Moisan

Covenants and Contracts are They Different?

May 12, 2017Blog

A Covenant is Not a Contract

Webster’s notes that a contract is “an agreement between two or more people to do something, a formal agreement enforceable by law.” Legal experts tell us that contracts involve an offer, acceptance, a promise to perform, a promise to pay for performance (what experts call consideration) and a time period by which performance must be completed. Terms and conditions in a contract dictate the details of both performance and consideration. What I find interesting is that the same dictionary defines a covenant as a form of a contract. Webster’s says it is, “a binding and solemn agreement to do or keep from doing a specified thing, a compact, a formal contract.”

I believe the definitions are similar because we’ve lost the language of covenant in our society. There are lots of reasons for this, but suffice it to say that covenants are quite different than contracts. They’re far more complex and demand more interpersonal commitment but they also promise more benefits than a contract does.

Contractual Limitations

By illustrating differences here, I’m not suggesting that contracts are inherently bad. On the contrary, contracts are an integral part of business in companies and nonprofits. However, considering the frequency of their use, it’s important to understand contractual limitations. First, they encourage people to negotiate terms based on their own self-interest. Consequently, as the contract is fulfilled, each party tends to evaluate value in the relationship based primarily on the performance of the other party. Second, if one party believes his or her self-interest is not being served, then that constitutes justification for either breaking or renegotiating the contract. Finally, a relationship defined solely in contractual terms can and often does breed mistrust, commodification of relationships and commitment only to self.

As we’ve seen in case after case, when trust is missing in relationships, contracts quickly deteriorate. In fact, most lawyers freely admit that for a contract to work, it has to be supported by an underlying basis of “good faith.” That “good faith” is really the foundation of a covenant.

In contrast to a heavily contractual environment that commodifies and mistrusts people, covenants assume good faith on the part of everyone involved. This is not to suggest that leaders should be naïve in their relationships. Certainly, at times there will be individuals who don’t operate in good faith, and it’s necessary to deal with those “bad faith” people appropriately. That said, it’s important to note that a few people dealing in bad faith, doesn’t justify being guarded with everyone.

Trust is the Key

However, dealing in good faith requires a certain amount of trust. For relationships to work that trust must be embraced by everyone. There simply can be no good faith and therefore no covenant if there is no trust. Consider the results of a marriage in which the partners don’t trust each other. It’s bound to set up anger, frustration, jealousy and eventually a breakup. While we understand the results of mistrust in marriage, many people lack that same understanding in a contract-laden business or nonprofit environment.

Thus, while contracts are binding legal agreements, covenants are binding and committed relationships. Contracts are bound by law, and covenants are bound by the character, values, and mutual goals of the people involved. I believe the failure of our society to differentiate between the two concepts contributes heavily to our leadership crisis. True, in some ways covenants are far more demanding on relationships than contracts, but they are also far more flexible, powerful and productive than contracts. In fact, as fundraising consultants, we encourage our clients to strive for covenant relationships with donors.

So what does this all look like in daily life? That’s what we’ll discuss next week.

by Len Moisan

Transformational Leadership

May 4, 2017Blog

“Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way.”

When he said it, Mitt Romney credited Thomas Paine as its author. The comment has also been attributed to Laurence Peter (Peter Principle) and General George Patton, but what does it tell us about leadership?

Leaders Establish Dynamic Relationships

Though we’re not exactly sure who first said it, the relevance of the quote is apparent inside any organization today. What the phrase really talks about is the dynamic leader-follower relationship that must exist if the organization is to be successful.

To that point, the late Peter Drucker commented, “The defining characteristic of leaders is followers.” Interestingly, without saying it directly, Drucker demonstrates the interconnectivity of the leader/follower relationship. Simply stated, you can’t have one without the other, and sometimes in that relationship (as James MacGregor Burns put it) leaders follow and followers lead.

Leaders Build Coalitions and Transform Followers by Addressing Mutual Needs

If you want to achieve anything through others; the relationships you have with followers can’t just be about your needs and priorities. It must also consider the needs and priorities of the people being led.

According to Burns attending to the needs and priorities of others helps leaders build coalitions of support. Building those coalitions is an important step both in getting things done and transforming followers into leaders.

Followers and Leaders Elevate Each Other

Burns explains, “Leadership is power governed by principle, directed toward raising people to their highest levels of personal motive and social morality. (It) occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise (elevate) one another.” That elevation is key to Burns’ idea of transformational leadership.

Well, you might ask, how does that elevation occur? Sometimes it occurs as leaders empower followers to lead and the leaders themselves follow their direction. Of course, at first this may be as simple as someone taking the lead, solving a problem for which they are equipped and receiving credit when they do so.

My son has been empowered to lead several times in his corporate career, and he’s had a lot more success than failure. In fact, company leaders recently promoted him to vice president, but that wouldn’t have happened without bosses who enabled him to lead in the first place. Likewise, he realizes that he also couldn’t have solved those problems without the help of followers.

Bernard Bass explained this elevation process, expounding on Burns’ theory in Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Transformational leaders:

• Model integrity/fairness so others willingly trust and follow
• Attend to needs and wants of followers including their need to lead
• Set clear goals for groups and individuals
• Encourage others in their work but also in their lives
• Establish high expectations, encourage people to reach beyond perceived limitations
• Provide support, recognition and appreciation for individuals and their contributions
• Stir the emotions of people and build engagement
• Pull together a team so they cooperate and look beyond self-interests

Others Get Out of the Way

This third part of the statement says simply that if you’re not leading or following, you’re in the way. While it seems self-explanatory, you’d be surprised how many people miss this point. When they need to get out of the way by resigning, they continue to stand in the way by resisting.

Now, I’m not suggesting that disagreements can’t occur inside organizations. They can and should occur. In fact, fighting through conflict is often the way we get to better decisions. However, for those who persistently disagree then it may be time to consider getting out of the way by finding greener pastures elsewhere.

by Len Moisan

Learning About Leadership from Peter Drucker (and Others)

April 28, 2017Blog

The late Peter Drucker gave a simple distinction between managers and leaders. He noted that management does things right, but leadership does right things.

Articulate, Direct and Inspire

In these brief words Drucker offered a simple yet profound commentary. Leadership is more about vision than it is implementation. Not to suggest that leaders aren’t concerned about implementation; they are. However, in any organization that happens when a leader articulates a vision, gives clear direction and inspires others to follow.

When John F. Kennedy said, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade not because (it’s) easy, but because (it’s) hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we’re willing to accept, one we’re unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

Delegate

Now JFK didn’t supervise every detail of the Apollo 11 project. As President of the US he was much too busy and ill-equipped for that. However, by articulating his vision and providing the necessary resources, he was able to inspire others to a high level of success. In fact, so strong was that vision that it outlived its visionary, and was achieved in 1969, six years after President Kennedy’s assassination.

Unfortunately, not all heads of organizations understand this. In Peter Drucker’s last interview, encouraged by his friend and pastor Rick Warren and conducted by Forbes writer Rich Karlgaard, he talked about this. In fact, the article gave several important jewels of advice:

Don’t Be a Know it All

Drucker has seen many organizations fall as a result of this. He noted, “Never try to be an expert if you are not. Build on your strengths and find strong people to do the other necessary tasks.”

Charisma is Overrated

Too much emphasis is placed on charisma today. Said Drucker, “The most charismatic leaders of the last century were called Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini.” They had a lot of power and charisma, but Drucker called them misleaders rather than leaders.

In fact, in Good To Great Jim Collins noted that companies that achieved the “good to great” status all had level 5 leaders. Collins noted that these leaders all possessed a combination of fierce resolve and commitment to the mission of the company and at the same time, personal humility.

Encourage Volunteer Work

Keeping people engaged is not always easy, particularly when they’ve been in their career for a while. They need to be re-invigorated and Drucker suggests that leaders provide parallel challenges by encouraging volunteer work outside of the organization.

Choose Character, Character.

According to Drucker, organizations offer plenty of management training, but character develops differently. He argues that character is learned over a longer period inside families, churches, synagogues and 12-step programs.

Certainly character is important, because people of character pattern their lives in a consistent manner. They are principle centered and not duplicitous. Character leaders operate from a position of integrity and use power for the good of the organization and not themselves; whereas people lacking character wield power at the expense of the organization and often for their own benefit.

So what is the answer? First, err on the side of character when selecting leaders. Regardless of whether the objective is revenue growth, church growth or nonprofit fundraising growth, people of character keep your mission primary.

Additionally, training people to understand your core values and then holding them accountable for working in a manner consistent with those values is crucial. Finally, the “holding people accountable” also depends on having people of character both leading the way and following in the first place.

by Len Moisan

What Can We Learn About Leadership From Marriage?

April 20, 2017Blog

The Case for Marriage

Syndicated columnist, Maggie Gallagher, and University of Chicago sociologist, Linda Waite, wrote The Case for Marriage. We’ve all heard that 50% of marriages end in divorce, but according to a New York Times report those numbers are “fake news.” They put the number closer to 30%, and for all Christians it’s about 15%.

The results of The Case for Marriage are based on Dr. Waite’s original research and her synthesis of hundreds of studies. Their book also includes excerpts from interviews. So what is it that we can learn?

The authors note that empirical and anecdotal evidence is quite contrary to popular negative myths about marriage. They demonstrate overwhelmingly that the marriage covenant is better physically, materially and spiritually than being single or divorced.

Better Payoffs for Partners

The findings demonstrate that married people live longer, enjoy better health, earn more money, accumulate more wealth, are more fulfilled, have more satisfying sex lives, are at less risk of being victims of violence and raise happier, more successful children than people who are single, divorced or cohabiting.

According to Waite and Gallagher, marriage benefits partners in much the same way business partnerships do. Specifically, mechanisms working in business (and also in nonprofit organizations) to provide payoffs for partners “are some of the same mechanisms we believe underlie the advantages (and benefits) married people demonstrate in just about every realm of life.”

Engaging People by Attending to Their Needs

Of course, in business and nonprofits many more people are involved, but the principles are the same. When the benefits are there, employees (and donors) become more engaged and more vested in the success of the organization. The authors note that the trust and promise of permanence implied in the partnership encourages partners, “to make decisions jointly and function as part of a team. Partners also expect to be able to count on others to be there and to fulfill their responsibilities.”

While this is true, it appears that businesses and organizations of all kinds are lacking in engagement. According to a recent Aon-Hewitt study, 61% of worldwide workers said they don’t feel engaged in their jobs. Gallup found that 70% of all US workers indicate they are not working to their full potential. Estimates indicate that this costs between $450 and $550 billion each year in lost productivity.

Caring for the Real Competitive Advantage

Accordingly, if employees represent the real competitive advantage, then it certainly make sense to try and meet their needs. This certainly represents a good start in enhancing engagement. However, other methods cited by the Gallup study include measuring engagement, hiring the right managers, coaching those managers, setting engagement goals and finding ways to connect with employees.

Connecting With People Through Covenant Partnerships

Finding ways to connect, means creating partnerships or covenants with employees and in fundraising, with donors. Gallagher and Waite observe that partners in marriage bring value and receive value. As a result of the covenant they share, the partners achieve more and create more value than they ever could on their own. Empirical data supports that this same concept, applied in business or any other kind of organization, works the same way.

Growing Through Retention and Loyalty

Of course, retention is directly related to engagement and profitability. Business guru Frederick Reichheld found that companies with the highest customer and employee retention were also the most profitable. He explains that building strong relationships with both groups by serving their interests is crucial to retention. When employees are treated like, “partners” they work to create value. That value adds directly to customers and thereby enhances retention. It also, “increases employees’ loyalty by giving them pride and satisfaction in their work.” As capital campaign consultants, we counsel our clients that donor retention works in much the same way. In nonprofit fundraising it is important to create a meaningful experience for the donor that conveys appreciation and builds engagement.

Reichheld notes that, “loyalty leaders” treat employees like partners. “Whether they use independent employee teams or vendor partnerships, the same principles of partnership apply. The key is to compensate partners by sharing the value they help to create for customers.”

These kind of relationships can exist in marriage, business, nonprofits or any other kind of organization, but wherever they occur covenant partnerships create value that can be measured in real, life-enriching, bottom-line results.

by Len Moisan

A Celebration of Freedom from a Servant Leader

April 12, 2017Blog

The First Servant Leader

Leadership comes in all shapes and sizes, but most literature on leadership tells us that the best leaders are servants. Of course, Jesus defines servant leadership. He led his disciples and even washed their feet. He also inspired, fed, challenged, encouraged, occasionally rebuked and ultimately equipped them to lead.

And the effects of His leadership were powerful. Consider that all of His apostles except one, died for the cause He established. Beyond that millions over millennia have received faith, forgiveness, hope, healing and an eternal blessing through the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Some History on Easter

On Sunday we celebrate Easter, the most sacred event of Christianity. Ironically, the actual name “Easter” comes from pagan celebrations. In fact, many pagan customs were combined with Christian resurrection traditions and became symbols of the resurrection of Jesus.

That said, the essence of Easter is not about Easter eggs, candy or the Easter Bunny. Those are all fun traditions, but they are unrelated to the main event. We actually celebrate the power and benevolence of the resurrection. Those effects are manifest in the many transformed lives and positive changes witnessed for more than two millennia in families, communities and countries.

Evidence for the Resurrection

True, critics argue that the resurrection of Jesus and even His existence are mythology. However, there’s so much evidence to the contrary that serious scholars don’t even consider those options.

Beyond Biblical accounts, many non-Christian sources testify to the existence of Jesus. Consider the writings of Josephus the Jewish historian, Tacitus the Roman historian, Mara Bar-Serapion the philosopher and Pliny the Younger the Roman Governor to name a few.

My friend, Dr. Gary Habermas, has devoted most of his academic career to studying the resurrection of Jesus. He notes that there are five historical facts about Christ on which there is virtual consensus among all ancient Historians. Three of these facts include the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

The death and burial of an innocent man by scourging and crucifixion are what we remember during Lent. We deny ourselves to reflect on His sacrifice for us. Yet, that wasn’t the end. The victorious resurrection is what we celebrate on Easter Sunday and every Sunday.

Good News for Everyone

Why celebrate? Because by faith in that victory through which our sins, and the sins of the world were poured out on Jesus, we receive forgiveness, peace and everlasting life. That truly is the Good News of the Gospel both for you and for me!

During this glorious season I am compelled to tell you that through faith, I too have received God’s wonderful grace! Not that I would have ever deserved it, but through God’s unmerited favor I’ve been forgiven and freed indeed!

I am freed to repent from sin’s great plague inherited at life’s start, freed to escape from the heavy burdens that resided within my heart, freed to forgive in thanks for God’s grace and freed from the judgment He took in my place, freed to live and free to die and free forever in Christ to abide.

Best of all, I’m freed to experience the new life in Christ through the amazing grace and forgiveness God has provided. This new life is directed and empowered by the Holy Spirit, Who enables me to overcome the challenges I face. But the Holy Spirit is also a guarantee of all that I will continue to receive forever in Christ.

That’s why I’m eternally grateful and I celebrate this victorious resurrection of Jesus! What does all of it mean? At the expense of extending this blog a little longer than usual, I will include a resurrection perspective from Tim Keller, one of my favorite authors:

A Perspective From Tim Keller

“If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all that he said; if he didn’t rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he said? The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like his teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead.”

Of course, Keller’s point is simple. If the Resurrection didn’t occur, then everything else about Christianity can be ignored because the Christian faith rests on that single occurrence. In fact, the Apostle Paul told us that if the resurrection didn’t occur then our faith is in vain and we are to be most pitied.

However, if Jesus did live and He was actually raised from the dead (a fact to which over 500 witnesses attested) then He merits our attention, our worship and our obedience.

Finally, during this season I offer that glorious Paschal greeting: “He is risen; He is risen indeed!” To you and yours, I send my warmest greetings in Christ for a happy and holy Easter!

by Len Moisan

Giving is Spiritual

April 7, 2017Blog

Recently I made the case that giving is a spiritual activity. I came across a few quotations supporting that point and I thought I’d share them.

Giving Because Mankind is My Business

Charles Dickens’ Christmas Carol is one of my favorite stories about redemption. We see a crusty, stingy man transformed into a kind and benevolent giver. At one point, Scrooge replies to Marley’s ghost that Marley had always been a good man of business. He responds:

“Business! Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

Dickens was saying that the world and money and fundraising are primarily about helping others and not about commerce. Business is certainly a vehicle for that, but it’s really a means to benevolent ends. In fact, Dickens said as much when he noted, “No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.”

Giving so Love is Manifest

Mother Theresa said that giving is actually a manifestation of love. She explained, “It’s not how much we give but how much love we put into giving.”

If you don’t love people you’re not likely to be compelled to help them by giving. And even if you do, it’s a lot less meaningful if your motivation is something other than love. Robert Louis Stevenson made that point when he said, “You can give without loving, but you can never love without giving.”

Giving Beyond a Tip

It’s relatively easy to give a few dollars to a bell ringer at Christmas, or to buy a few boxes of girl-scout cookies or give $50 to volunteer firefighters. That kind of giving is important, but for most it’s more of a tip than a gift.

In my capital campaign consulting, I’ve found that major giving requires a time of reflection prompted by hearing or experiencing a compelling case. In fact, as a university vice president, one of my responsibilities was to tell our story, and then invite people to share our vision and make a major gift. I found (painfully) that good-sized gifts rarely came from one visit. People need time to think, discuss and often pray about the request. As fundraising consultants, we advise our clients to incorporate this mentality into their major gift requests.

Part of that time is used to answer critical questions. Is what they’re asking affordable? How are people affected by their work? How will my gift touch more people? What am I being led to do? That’s why I wrote previously that giving is a spiritual experience, particularly if I’m trying to give from the heart with grace.

Giving Under Grace

John Paul Warren explained the difference between giving under grace and under law.

“When you give under “compulsion” or “Grudgingly” you are giving under the law of giving and not grace. God loves a cheerful (thankful) giver, which is giving under grace.”

Grace is unmerited favor. When people give under grace they’re giving freely to someone or something at a major level, knowing that the organization or individual will never repay them. That’s really the point of grace.

The famed John Wesley reminds us that it’s, “Not, how much of my money will I give to God, but, how much of God’s money will I keep for myself?”

Unfortunately, when it comes to giving, many of us operate as Oswald Chambers described, “like the Dead Sea, always taking in but never giving out.”

Celebrating the Greatest Gift

This season we ready ourselves to celebrate God’s greatest gift to us. In the spirit of that grace let us give generously, knowing that our redemption is freely given to us through God’s costly benevolence; namely the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

by Len Moisan