OPINION:
The New York Times just reported that the once-ballyhooed Giving Pledge that saw dozens of billionaires publicly promise to distribute half their fortunes to charities has fallen out of favor and now there’s a sort of backlash taking place — indeed, a sort of backtracking, where the promised distributions aren’t happening and the signatories themselves are removing their names.
This is the natural result of a charitable endeavor that never was so much charity as it was about selfish self-promotion.
The Giving Pledge is a philanthropic endeavor founded in 2010 by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates to encourage fellow billionaires to give at least half of their money and possessions to various charities, either while they are still living or in their wills, or both. The pledge isn’t legally binding, of course. It’s more like a public promise — and more to truth, more like a public show of good moral character that also serves as a not-so-subtle bit of pressure for others who might hesitate to similarly sign.
After all, the world of billionaires is filled with some of the world’s biggest egos, and nothing says “admire me, me, me” like a good old-fashioned giveaway of batches of cash.
The praise and attention that have been showered on those who’ve taken the public pledge have been substantial. The Gates and Buffett, for example, were invited to the White House shortly after creating the Giving Pledge to discuss with then-President Obama all the glorious ways they could spread their wealth, as well as the wealth of others. Since, about 250 people from 30 countries have signed on — all of whom are then listed on the Giving Pledge website, alongside their personal profiles and their personal statements about their love of giving and their personal hopes to change the world and their personal views of why they are so thankful to all the others out there who similarly give. Blah, blah, blah.
On one hand, yes, it’s a good example for all to know that billionaires give so much of their money to the less fortunate. It can be motivating. It can be inspirational. It can be encouraging.
It can also be self-serving.
After all, Mark 12 gives the example of true gifting, the kind that Jesus recognizes — and it has nothing to do with amount and everything to do with heart. This is the Bible story of the woman who was so touched by Jesus that she gave her last coins to the temple, and in so doing, traded her material poverty for spiritual and heavenly riches. Jesus said she gave more than the wealthy because she gave all and from her heart.
If the Giving Pledge were about giving, then this wouldn’t be: “The Giving Pledge, once trendy among the world’s richest, has come upon hard times,” The New York Times wrote.
And of the past versus present regard for the Giving Pledge, The New Times went on to write, “It was unmistakably fashionable [in 2010] to sign the Giving Pledge, which launched with [Charlie] Rose’s gauzy TV interview and a Fortune cover story. The project was born in an era when people like Mr. Gates epitomized a humanitarian culture that espoused both big capitalism and big philanthropy. Being seen as a good billionaire who gave back was important. … Now it’s stylish, in a Silicon Valley contrarian sort of way, to bash the Giving Pledge.”
The Times went on to report that in the last couple of years, early signers have taken the unusual step of changing the terms of their pledges, or even outright removing their names from the list.
From TechCrunch: “The Giving Pledge’s numbers … trace a steady decline. In its first five years, 113 families signed the Pledge. Then 72 over the next five, 43 in the five after that, and just four in all of 2024.”
One notable billionaire, Peter Thiel — who was never a fan of the Pledge in the first place, or of Gates — said the campaign has “really run out of energy” and that “it feels way less important for people to join.”
That’s because to the joiners, the actual act of giving was always secondary.
True givers give in secret, expecting nothing in return, and even denying their giving in some instances. This type of giving — of giver — is once again biblical.
“But when you give alms,” Matthew 6:3 states, “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”
Why give in secret? The Bible makes clear that God sees the gift and will return it as a reward in Heaven. But the secular reason is this: giving shouldn’t place any onus on the recipient. And recipients of charity can feel burdened if they are unable to return the givers’ generosity.
These Giving Pledge billionaires are of a different caliber of giver — a more attention-seeking caliber of giver — and in that respect, it’s no wonder the campaign is losing its steam.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast “Bold and Blunt” by clicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter and podcast by clicking HERE. Her latest book, “God-Given Or Bust: Defeating Marxism and Saving America With Biblical Truths,” is available by clicking HERE.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.