How faith-based nonprofits should talk in public

I once worked with an evangelical social-service organization that found out through some research that a large minority of its donors were Jewish. They went into freak-out mode, terrified they'd offend their Jewish donors if they were "too evangelical" (i.e., if they mentioned Jesus).

Big mistake. Response dropped. No doubt because the core evangelical donors no longer felt at home. And the Jewish donors? Surely they knew up front what kind of organization they were supporting; the change in communication was meaningless at best, and possibly confusing.

If you're a faith-based organization, you've probably wrestled with this issue. How "religious" should you be? If you wear your faith on your sleeve, are you scaring away supporters? That's the discussion at NP Advisors: Faith-based online fundraisers share concerns and ideas.

The general consensus was that it's important to remain true to the faith, but not to the exclusion of those outside the faith who share in the mission. The Quaker organization Friends Committee for National Legislation, for example, lobbies for peace and says that only 35% of their supporters are Quakers. "It seems the concept of peace has a broader following," said its representative.

Here are some principles I've learned around this topic:

• Don't try to hide who you are. It's dishonest to begin with, and it's ineffective anyway. Anti-faith zealots who would be turned away by the very mention of your spiritual values aren't in your audience to begin with. (In fact, for the most part they aren't donors to anything at all. Don't worry about them.)
  
• On the other hand, don't wedge yourself into your narrowest cultural and theology niche. Unless you're actually within your faith community, use language that's understandable to everyone.
  
• Don't be afraid of your donors. They aren't going to punish you for having faith. They probably have it too.
  

Thanks to happydonors for the tip.

Technorati Tag: religion

Comments

[Thomas Morrison]

I'm trying to raise funds for a school chess club and found this site. It's already starting to give me insight. Thanks.

Given your knowledge of fund raising, you might be able to tell me why organizations raising funds have not supported the concept of a consumption tax like the FairTax. Generous people would contribute more if they had more to give or so I thought.

With Appreciation,

Thomas Morrison
Teacher

[Jeff Brooks]

I should have been clearer. An anti-faith zealot is a bogeyman that some religious organizations use to scare themselves. In my opinion, they are largely fictitious; any actual ones are not hanging around in donor populations, waiting to punish faith-based nonprofits. That's why those organizations needn't be afraid of them.

[Travis]

"Anti-faith zealots who would be turned away by the very mention of your spiritual values aren't in your audience to begin with. (In fact, for the most part they aren't donors to anything at all. Don't worry about them.)"

How do you define an "anti-faith zealot?" And what evidence do you have that such people do not donate to any causes. You had my support on this post up until this part. There are a lot of very generous and socially active people who are not religiously affiliated. Maybe you should clarify what you meant.

[Sam Davis]

Rather than freak out, the evangelical Christian group would have far better served its purpose by keeping on message, and doing a survey among Jewish contributors to find out why they contributed.