Should funding decisions be interpreted as “divine validation”?
Funding decisions are, in essence, full of power. The choice to give or withhold funds not only impacts the financial prospects of charities, but also has a strong psychological element, validating or destabilising leaders’ conviction in their visions and missions. These financial and psychological dynamics are a frequent discussion topic and considered carefully within mainstream philanthropy.¹
However, we need to pay more attention to the spiritual element inherent in Christian funding decisions. As we ask in Eido’s Impact Strategy Model, what role should faith play in the strategic process? Is God a part of the funding decision? And should funding decisions be interpreted by leaders as not only human but also divine validation?
Based upon findings from our recent impact evaluation of Stewardship’s Rapid Response Fund (RRF), we suggest that the above questions need further consideration.
One in four leaders view funding decisions as “divine validation”
Throughout the impact evaluation of the RRF, a recurring theme was the role of God in the funding process. Rightly or wrongly, one in four leaders considered the funding decisions of the RRF board a form of “divine validation”.
“When RRF saw potential and invested in us, we took that as spiritual confirmation that we are still on track and being faithful”, said one leader. “The result of [this grant] feels like a reinforcement that God wants our ministry to continue – which has encouraged everyone”, added another. “I felt vindicated by decisions to pursue God’s Kingdom and the mission we are called to and faith that God would provide if we did that. RRF was very faith-building”, added a third.
Whilst one in four leaders volunteered this perspective in their open answers (without a prompt), this is likely to be an underestimate of the number who actually agree with this idea. In other words, if asked directly whether they viewed the RRF’s funding decision as a confirmation of “God’s will”, the proportion agreeing could have been significantly higher than 25 per cent.
In some ways this is an understandable way to interpret funding decisions. Christian philanthropic organisations, including Stewardship, often suggest that they seek God in guiding their decision-making process. The National Christian Foundation, for instance, says they “prayerfully seek [God’s] abundant wisdom to guide our decisions, knowing that everything we have to give isn’t ours”.² Similarly, in the 2018 report from the Bible Society, Christian philanthropists identified prayer as “an important part of the decision-making process”.³
There is of course also the possibility that God may work through any grantmaking process (Chirstian or otherwise). Regardless of whether funders intentionally sought God’s guidance, leaders may therefore be justified in interpreting any human action as divinely guided and inspired.
However, as is quite apparent in the paragraphs above, from the perspective of grantmakers, there are significant areas of ambiguity in these stances that call into question the certainty with which leaders are interpreting decisions.
Firstly, there is a lack of clarity about the extent to which Christian funders integrate God into their decision-making process. Here Fischer (2003) asks whether faith is a programmatic factor (i.e., prayer as a key cause behind a fund’s decisions) or simply a contextual factor (i.e., the general faith-based environment of the fund). Often leaders are left to guess which applies for organisations from which they have received funding. Furthermore, when organisations such as the National Christian Foundation and Stewardship’s Rapid Response Fund do mention the role of prayer in their decisions, it is often in relatively abstract terms, giving grantees little indication of whether this is a short prayer said at the start of the discernment process, or more extensive fasting and praying.
Secondly, there is the obvious question of whether Christian philanthropists “get it right” when interpreting God’s guidance. Whilst the “activity” of prayer is the advertised process, there is very little mention of the “outcome”. Assuming that we do not take the untenable position that “everything that happens is God’s will”, we have to ask: to what extent do funders rightly interpret God’s guidance? Is it 80 per cent of the time? Fifty per cent of the time? Or less?
Thirdly, these questions become more of a concern when we consider those organisations whose funding bids are unsuccessful. To be logically consistent, if we are going to interpret successful funding applications as confirmation of “God’s hand” on the project, then are we comfortable interpreting unsuccessful funding applications as a confirmation that God’s hand is not on the project? And considering that financial resources are often scarce, with funders having to make hard decisions between good and great programmes, is this really a fair indication of divine guidance?
More caution and clarity needed from funders and recipients.
Christian grantmakers, and Christian recipient organisation leaders, understandably interpret and integrate God into funding decisions. In many ways, it is this strategic integration that enables organisations such as Stewardship to boldly stand out.
However, in this boldness there needs to be a higher level of critical thinking from both grantmakers and recipient leaders. “The apprehension of the products of human activity as if they were manifestations of divine will” is an all too easy slope to slip down without careful forethought.⁴
With regard to grantmakers, a higher level of clarity needs to be provided about the extent to which God is integrated into the decision-making process. If “not at all” is the position, this needs to be stated. Even then, however, Christian grantmakers should also be aware that it is likely that their decisions, regardless of intent, will be interpreted as more than just “human validation”. This level of “spiritual influence” argues for additional caution in funding decisions.
With regard to recipients, leaders should exercise increased discernment in interpreting grantmaking decisions. Given the level of ambiguity as well as uncertainty of accuracy, it is dangerous to be so certain that human actions are synonymous with God’s.
Eido Research exists to help faith-based organisations measure and improve their impact. We do this through impact strategy workshops, and impact evaluation services.
To learn more about Eido’s Impact Strategy please sign up to a free workshop, or schedule a call.
References
1 - Adam, T. 2004. Philanthropy, Patronage, and Civil Society: Experiences from Germany, Great Britain and North America. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
2 - National Christian Foundation. 2019. ‘Your guide to giving’. Available online.
3 - Kurlberg, J. and Kurlberg, N. 2019. Trends in Christian Philanthropy in the UK. Bible Society.
4 - Berger, P. 1996. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
