David Green’s Christian Legacy

hobbylobbystowohio

David Green is the Forbes 400 billionaire whose family owns Hobby Lobby.  Along with the Cathy family of Chick-Fil-A fame, Green is one of the few prominent evangelical Christian billionaires.  The Green family recently deposited their entire business inside a trust where it will be used exclusively to fund Christian ministries.

As I think about my own family’s significant wealth and succession planning, I think there are some lessons, positive and negative, to glean from the Green family’s decision.  I recently read his latest book about the experience, called Giving It All Away.  Green thinks seriously about his wealth and about the Kingdom, but unfortunately his theology leaves him ill-prepared for the burden of wealth.

In the book, we see a glimpse into Green’s psychology, as his parents were dirt poor Pentecostals, his father a preacher and his mother a preacher’s wife.  Pentecostalism is perhaps the purest expression of the low church Protestant impulse towards evangelism at all costs.  Green’s mother in particular drove this into him and his siblings, such that David was the “black sheep” of the family while all of his brothers became ministers.  As Hobby Lobby expanded and Green’s success developed, his mother withheld approval of her son, constantly asking, “Yes, but what have you done for the Lord lately?”  His mother believed that all unnecessary activities outside of evangelism were wasteful.

This pietist impulse is in my view one of the most insidious forms of legalism in the church, and as a Christian with a legacy to give to my children, it is so dangerous that I have been working for several years on a book to counter the propaganda.  For there is an entire Christian and non-Christian philanthropy industrial complex that seeks to separate the wealthy from their money.  It says something about our age that even the secular wealthy cannot handle the burden, with prominent billionaires pledging to give it all away.

While Green calls himself a steward, in essence the plot of the book is his wanting to move away from the shoulder of responsibility and pass that on to a self-perpetuating board, initially consisting of his family members, that will give away the profits of Hobby Lobby in perpetuity to Christian ministries.  I see several problems with this approach:

First, children have a right to an inheritance, a legal claim on the family fortune if they remain loyal and faithful to the family and faith.  This is a Biblical concept.  In my view, no family steward has the right to squander the family fortune, whether through profligate spending or profligate charity.  One redeeming facet of Green’s action is that he got the permission of all his children and grandchildren to place their inheritance in the trust.

Second, there is no escaping the need for leadership and possession.  We cannot “give” anything to God, for God has appointed us as His agents.  Thus, the eventual result of Green’s actions will be the capture of his fortune by political players on his trust board, who have no skin in the game.  There is a whole industry of Christian deceivers out there, like Randy Alcorn, who convince wealthy Christians to part with their fortunes “for the Kingdom.”  If you read Alcorn’s books about the necessity of living like a pauper to maximize evangelism, and become convinced of his case, he conveniently already has a 501(c)(3) setup in which you can deposit your guilt-inducing cash.  Of course, if it were theoretically possible to give one’s fortune to Christ directly, we would.  But God delegates this task to us, the control and use of wealth.  Green’s actions are simply him passing stewardship from one fallible human (himself), who at least has business sense and skin in the game, to other fallible humans purporting to represent Christ more directly due to their involvement in massive Christian charity bureaucracies.  The Green family trust can do nothing with its money other than donate to these bureaucracies, and eventually these bureaucrats will control the trust as well.

Third, I believe Green’s plan will fail.  Eventually, someone outside of the Green family will come onto the board of the trust, and through political influence will dilute the mission of the organization.  This has happened numerous times – see the Ford Foundation, etc.  Whenever there is a huge pile of money controlled by a board of people with no skin in the game, political players emerge to seek control for other ends. Liberals in particular are very skilled in using deception to worm their way into positions of influence.  Green’s trust, by being explicitly Christian, is particularly vulnerable to judicial interference.  If and when, for example, opposition to the homosexual agenda becomes “against public policy,” federal judges can and will dissolve the Green family trust or appoint alternative trustees to subvert the mission of the organization.  Green’s trust documents are arguably already in violation of official public policy since he requires all trustees to have a “credible written testimony” of faith in Christ.  By giving up possession of the Hobby Lobby fortune to an entity that is not the Green family, eventually it will be captured by the political process.

Wealthy people around the world cannot handle their wealth, and the desire to escape it, to annihilate it with philanthropy, is part, in my view, of the general death wish of modern civilization.  No one has any true hope or vision for the future, whether the secular pessimism of a materialist like Bill Gates, or the premillenial, “waiting for the Rapture” variety held by many evangelicals like the Greens.  The Gates Foundation is founded on the premise of humanism, that the highest use of a great fortune is to relieve human suffering before we all die a meaningless death.  The Green family’s premise seems to be that of the fireman, who sees a building burning down and his sole mission is to rescue those inside. Neither can conceive of an optimistic future, of the necessity of building capital for the long haul for a glorious future in partnership with God.

My prescription for wealthy Christians?  Grow your fortune as large as you lawfully can, retain control of it, discipline your children in its proper use.  Give away 15% or so of the income as a long-term average, but never let a John Piper, Randy Alcorn or any other pietist who never created a job in his life anywhere near the principal.  Don’t feel guilty for living well, for the tithe and a bit more is all God requires of you.  The management of wealth is a multi-generational skill and God requires specialists – stewardship means bearing the burden required, not shrugging it off to be squandered by ministers, missionaries, “fundraising professionals” and other bureaucrats ill-equipped in its growth and management.

 

10 thoughts on “David Green’s Christian Legacy

  1. A Christian man’s first financial responsibility is his own family, and not only immediately assuring they have food and clothing but also savings for emergencies, and that their descendants have the same. This is responsible and a godly use of whatever means God gifts us. We absolutely SHOULD give, especially with our abundance and not squander our abundance with trifles. But this starts with your community and local church community first. That is, personal charity. This is why I almost never donate when a fast food restaurant asks me to give 50 cents. Giving to large, impersonal international charities for the sake of satisfying the pleadings of a Francis Chan for example isn’t especially holy and is not a Christian imperative.

    Good article.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Appreciate your comments. Yes, I agree with generous giving and avoiding wasteful spending. There is a third option, though, which is to reinvest the money to grow even more income. I’ve settled on about 15% as my amount to give, with the remainder, past a reasonable lifestyle, reinvested or saved.

      Like

  2. “Wealthy people around the world cannot handle their wealth, and the desire to escape it, to annihilate it with philanthropy, is part, in my view, of the general death wish of modern civilization.”

    I think the primary reason these large trusts are setup are to avoid estate taxes. As you point out, the Green’s sound like true believers in their charitable efforts, but for most wealthy people, they want to avoid the 45-55% estate tax bill. Wealthy people can also use a charitable trust to employ family members rather than just give them money that would be subject to the gift tax.

    The best advice I have heard regarding charitable trusts is to give them a narrow, specific mission and put an end date on the trust. This gives the original donor more control and can help prevent some of the mission hijacking issues you see happen with trusts like the Ford Foundation.

    Like

    1. I’m not an expert in this area of law, but would generally have no problem with using trusts as structures for tax avoidance, if the trust does not subvert family control and use of the capital. My objection is simply to the mindset that the best thing one can do with wealth is give it all away instead of leaving it to the next generation.

      Like

      1. I agree. I think a major factor in The Giving Pledge setup Buffett, Gates, etc., is the seeking of public praise and image control for giving away wealth. If much of the money is squandered, the average person is unlikely to find out of about it, while retaining positive feelings towards the donor.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Unearned wealth is corrosive. Trump may have escaped it with his children by integrating them into his business empire so they are part of the earning.
    Instruct? You can’t change the fact that it was an accident of birth not unlike winning the lottery that is the cause of the children’s wealth. And the stories of people ruined by winning the lottery are not uncommon.

    At the same time, there is much evil in the world, and much good undone. Crisis pregnancy centers go begging. Informing people about jury nullification could change everything (fija.org). Many other opportunities. We only have today. What happened to the rich in Europe in 1936 by 1946?

    Scripture says that in anything about the future, we need to add “God Willing” even if it is merely a day-trip tomorrow. If so, projecting a decade or a century is presumptuous.

    At best you can try to find a good steward, and hope when he leaves he is replaced by another good steward. But you can’t control it.

    Like

    1. I think there are possibly some issues with several parts of your analogy. First, the Bible is clear that a good parent provides an inheritance for their children. The Jubilee practice in the OT restored ancient land rights to each family, for example. All wealth is “unearned” in a sense, but money is just one form of capital. I discuss this in the book, but the other forms of capital are moral capital, genetic capital. Children of those who earn wealth can be trained to have the moral capital and likely have the genetic capital to handle the wealth, or at least have a fighting chance in that regard. Lotto winners are literally people who can’t do math and want something for nothing, which is not a direct analogy to inherited wealth. There is no genetic lottery – the genetics help generate the wealth – thrift, industry, intelligence, morality, religiosity are all influenced by genetic effects. Not entirely mind you, but influenced in part, whereas lotto winners probably have the worst possible genetics and inherited cultural traits for the preservation of wealth.

      I agree with your other statements, which is why I support giving away a large part of one’s income – about 15%, maybe more. I also agree perfect control is impossible, the best we can do is to develop another steward. I have a lot of thinking to do about this, but one great approach would be to keep the control of the wealth under a single family patriarch, perhaps my smartest, most responsible, moral, faithful grandson, with his duty to manage it for the rest of the family’s benefit and also to support charitable causes consistent with the standards I establish. Much I have to yet figure out, which is why I find Green’s story fascinating, even if I disagree with his decision. At least he’s thinking about it and causing other people to think about it too!

      Like

    2. I also feel strongly that children born into privilege must be forced to work, and work hard, to be worthy of their inheritance. Green and I agree strongly on this. Nothing should be given to them at a young age.

      Like

  4. If parasites shouldn’t get 100%, why should they get 15%?

    Finding a deserving family or youngster and helping them eat, rent, start, or improve a business, or just giving them a cushion for retirement, seems like a decent thing that can be done without parasites extracting a fee of any kind.

    Like

    1. I agree that parasites should get nothing, which is why I take an entrepreneurial approach to giving. Often I just give gifts directly to individuals in need, for example middle class families with crushing medical expenses, and avoid the bureaucracy entirely. I also follow Taleb’s rule of never giving money to anyone who asks for it. I only give to things that are my idea, and I try to actively think of giving opportunities. It is definitely a challenge to responsibly donate.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s