The Art & Ethics of Fundraising
Evangelical relief agencies raise money to help hurting people. Critics say they manipulate donors. Agencies say they highlight the most telling truths. Who is right?
Ken Waters | posted 12/03/2001 12:00AM

2 of 6

"It takes great faith to work hard for six months to implement the formula that makes a Billy Graham Crusade a success. … [and] that 5,000 people or more will walk down the aisle and be saved as a result of all the hard work and prayer. This is a miracle of faith, too." Nearly all evangelical relief-and-development agencies have reached the same conclusion.
When Youth for Christ wanted to send an evangelist to China in 1947, a Nazarene youth minister named Bob Pierce took up the challenge. As he conducted crusades in China and Korea for the next several years, Pierce's heart was broken by the plight of widows and orphans. These hungry and scared victims of war and poverty were too sick to hear the gospel; they first needed food and comfort.
That is the message Pierce took home, often showing his 16-millimeter movies in American churches. While evangelicals were still wary of filmed entertainment, these movies touched them. Donations to Pierce's overseas work increased so much that he needed a formal organization to manage the income. That was the beginning of World Vision and the modern era of evangelical fundraising.
In subsequent years, Christian communication experts outlined ethical standards for fundraising. Charles Veenstra and Daryl Vander Kooi, for example, proposed in a 1979 issue of Religious Communication Today that the basic premise of all communication is that people deserve to have their intellect and freedom respected, because they are reflections of God. Further, honest communication should include "careful documentation of facts, solid information, cogent reasoning, clear statistics, quoting within context, appropriate emotional appeals, use of genuine experts."
Their ethical guidelines are echoed in key portions of "Seven Standards of Responsible Stewardship" by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which, among other duties, monitors relief agencies' communications. According to ECFA's standards, the fundraisers must make sure their narratives about events are current, complete, and accurate, and that the material they create is free of omissions, exaggerations, or "any other communication which would tend to create a false impression or misunderstanding."
Urgent Underlining
The standards are there because of the many temptations and challenges fundraisers face. Whether they succumb is a matter of debate both inside and outside their world. The automated underlining and implied personalization of direct mail bothers Hamilton. Each month thousands of people who have never met Clive Calver, president of World Relief, receive a letter that seems addressed specifically to them.
"I have an important message to share with you—from my heart to yours—a valued friend and partner with World Relief," one letter begins. The practice is common with agencies that merge mailing lists with appeal copy to achieve the appearance of a personal letter. It underscores how our reliance on technology causes us to accept such fictions. "Most of us feel instinctively that this is false," Hamilton says.
Personalization has become such a cliché in appeal letters that most readers do not take it as a serious expression of intimacy. Still, many organizations avoid the technique. A recent letter from Samaritan's Purse uses the greeting "Dear Friend," and the unadorned prose tells of 4 million shoeboxes full of gifts donated by Samaritan's Purse supporters. The only appeal for funds is more a declarative statement that comes in a side notation. Readers find out that the Children's Heart Project spends about $1,500 to bring a child or parent to the United States for medical treatment, and that individuals or churches are invited to assist.