Adding to the heart of charity

Those are some of the stories that emerged from a Senate Finance Committee hearing this spring on charitable-giving abuses. Committee chairman Charles Grassley concluded, "It's time for comprehensive reforms to shut down personal enrichment at the needy's expense." He's right, but the arrogance of government and foundation officials at the expense of the needy is an even greater problem.

Get all the Monitor's headlines by e-mail. Subscribe for free.

E-mail this story Write a letter to the Editor Printer-friendly version del.icio.us [ What is this? ] digg [ What is this? ]

Today, many public and private philanthropic wannabes ignore the bonds of attachment that churches and other religious groups have built in inner cities, and instead rely on gossamer cords cut from parachutes of dropped-off activists.

Newly minted PhDs in giving-ology tend to say: Don't just sit there, create a new program.

It would be much better to say: Don't just do something, watch what some sacrificing inner-city folks with faith already are doing - probably part-time, and underequipped - and then help them do more.

Most organizations should be pro-active, but philanthropists concerned with poverty should deliberately be reactive, learning from the efforts of ordinary folks who tired of looking the other way as their communities fell apart. Watching and waiting requires philanthropic humility.

It's ego-gratifying for philanthropists or Washington officials to be the producers of "American Idol," jump-starting the careers of winners. It's harder to wait and let a community choose its own leaders. But the rich and powerful, instead of making selections, should concentrate on certifying and helping those who are already doing the job.

Anything new about that process? Not really: It's how good churches select elders - by seeing who already is a leader, counselor, and dispenser of wisdom, and then certifying that person. A group that comes to a center of wealth as the Scarecrow or Tin Woodsman approached the Wizard of Oz, asking for a brain or a heart, is not a group worth supporting. A group that already has a brain and a heart can benefit from the Wizard's endorsement. Rich contributors can add to what's already there, perhaps oiling tin joints, but they cannot give anything new. In particular, they cannot give courage, which is a quality demanded for effective poverty-fighting.

It will be hard to reverse the pattern of foundation and governmental over-activism, and to teach philanthropists to aspire to, at most, an Oscar for best supporting actor. Organizations will need to learn more about the importance of fighting both kinds of poverty, spiritual and material. Then they will need to find out how and what to give in a way that doesn't leave a struggling group undersupplied but also doesn't give it more money than it can handle. Call it the pH factor, for philanthropic humility: too much money given to a worthy recipient can be acidic, but too little can be alkaline.

The Senate Finance Committee would do well to examine not only private abuses, but the off-the-charts acidity that often results when government starts dropping dollars on a project.

Philanthropic humility is necessary if a giver is to do more good than harm, but it is not sufficient; philanthropic prudence is also needed. Prudence is best learned not in classrooms, but through years of experience on the streets.

Wise givers will rely not on new doctors of philosophy, but on veteran "doctors of streetology," as Denver's Bob Cote puts it - those who have devoted decades to helping others. Their lives will never be air conditioned, but bringing a cup of cold water and a fan can make a huge difference.

• Marvin Olasky is editor in chief of World magazine. ©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.