I’ve heard a line of logic perpetuated from the biggest of stages, from pastors and leaders I respect a great deal. It proceeds something like this:
Imagine how much faster we could solve world problems if we all gave just a bit more to charity.
There is a lot to like about this sentiment. I’m a nonprofit fundraiser, after all. I’m all for people giving more to charity, particularly my charity! Still, I believe this logic does more harm than good.
In 1913 in a small farming town in Iowa, Fred H. Wells invested $250 on a horse, wagon and cans. And he began making ice cream. Iowans loved it. Delicious ice cream never stays a secret long and soon Iowa’s secret leaked beyond its borders. Fred Wells began selling a lot of ice cream. Today, his company—Blue Bunny—is the largest family-owned ice cream company in the world, selling over one billion dollars of it annually.
I probably enjoy Blue Bunny ice cream more than I should. I’m fairly sure Brett McCracken was thinking about Peanut Butter Panic when he wrote, “Food…is something we can delight in, something through which we can taste the goodness of God.”
Recently, I was enjoying a bowl of Blue Bunny with family when we began discussing the company. The Wells are friends with my father-in-law and he’s had the opportunity of visiting their headquarters in Le Mars many times. He shared about how the company operates, treats its employees, and gives charitably from its profits. Blue Bunny is an exemplary model of business done well.
Upon learning that, I looked down at my empty bowl and quickly scooped seconds.
Eating Blue Bunny isn’t just a culinary joy. It’s effects stretch far beyond my bowl. Buying Blue Bunny sustains the careers of over 2,500 workers. Their wages put food on their families’ tables and clothes in their closets. The company and its employees pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, which paves Iowan roads, sustains public schools, and employs the local police force.
There’s more to Blue Bunny ice cream than cream and sugar. When I trade four dollars for a half-gallon, that money doesn’t just evaporate. It fuels the grocery store, dairy farmers, truckers, and others along the Blue Bunny chain.
When we perpetuate the logic that “increased charitable giving will accelerate poverty reduction,” we inadvertently suggest that other types of spending don’t have a role to play in reducing poverty. In a sense, we create a monetary “sacred/secular” divide. Each use of our dollars—spending, giving, investing and saving—serves valuable purposes in our economy.
Giving to the homeless shelter alleviates poverty, but so does purchasing an iPhone. Healthy societies are built on families and institutions—churches, charities, businesses, and schools. It’s our job to sustain and fuel the best institutions through our giving, spending and investing.
Yes, give generously to charity. Openhandedness should be a countercultural marker and enduring posture of Christians. Giving is good for our souls and good for our communities. But each use of money can contribute to the alleviation of poverty. Spend and invest well. Buy from the good guys and steer clear of the weasels. And above all, scoop a second serving of Blue Bunny.
Interesting perspective Chris, and neat to hear the story of the Blue Bunny founders! You highlight a solid point that everything has a tradeoff. Sometimes we neglect that fact, and simply believe that money spent one place has no effect on money not spent elsewhere. With this understanding, if you really dug into the utility of your dollar, I do believe that encouraging someone to switch their $5 daily mocha to a $150 NGO sponsorship could be healthy. Most are unwilling to do this (which is why Starbucks or Blue Bunny need not start a ‘don’t donate your coffee/icecream money away!’ campaign), so the few that opt-out of their drink/snack won’t significantly impact the company. However, with most NGOs on a relatively tighter budget, if those donors switched their decision and used their discretionary income on coffee and icecream instead of giving, the implications could be larger. Just a thought. Thanks for the article!
Greg – Good thoughts. I think you’re right-on with where you end your comment: “The implications COULD BE larger” when donating to a nonprofit versus buying a mocha. And I think that’s where I struggle with the rationale I’m addressing in this post. Because there are a number of embedded assumptions in this logic that simply aren’t true. As you know, there are a lot of crummy charities out there (http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/). Deciding to give $150 to the nonprofit featured on a late-night infomercial might actually cause a lot more harm than good. In that instance, buying a $500 iPad would do much more good in the world than a $500 donation. That’s my basic point of this post. It’s not so simple to suggest that donated dollars do good and spent/invested dollars do not.
Our mission is to feed hungry and abused children ice cream. Delivered with the excitement of an ice cream truck. Also to victims of natural disasters and through neighborhoods after devastating storms