Many years ago, I was, shall we say, encouraged to give to United Way. Well, let’s come out and say it: There was some serious arm-twisting going on, and I did suspect I might lose my job over it. The reason given to me was that someone in the company hierarchy decided they wanted 100% participation, and I wasn’t participating.

Quite some time before that, as a private in the Marines, I was told, if I didn’t participate on the United Way drive, I would go on mess duty, washing pots and pans. I didn’t like that idea. So I went along to get along.

I do not like the United Way. I do not like many of the organizations they support, but that is a different subject. It is a subject I could write on extensively. That, however, is not the subject I wish to dwell on. My complaint is the strong-arm tactics used to gain participation.

In the era preceding personal computing, I carefully composed a handwritten letter addressed to the senior executive overseeing the Memphis regional office.

I had no hope whatsoever that anyone would read it. To my surprise, I received a phone call. Well, I must give them credit for that, though I am sure there are a few things they did not think through completely.

Right off the bat, he offered me a simple solution: I give in to the demands, and they would return it to me by check right away. The company gets full participation, and I get to keep my money.

Think about it. What’s the problem? Who does it hurt? I hope you are more intelligent than the vice chairman who made that suggestion.

Essentially, what he suggested was dishonest. He was asking me to lie to the corporation for which I worked. He was asking me to lie to my colleagues. He was asking me to take part in the larger lie to the community that the company had 100% participation. Moreover, he was asking me to put my stamp of approval on the United Way, and that could not be farther from the truth.

They pressured me to validate organizations that, in my assessment, did not align with my moral standards or ethical principles. In essence they wanted me to call evil good.

The most significant challenge I faced was confronting the intimidating tactics employed against me, initially during my military service and subsequently in my corporate career. Such coercive methods represent a profound violation of professional and ethical standards, and must be unequivocally condemned.

Years later, the consequences of that pivotal moment remain unclear. Did my choice silently derail potential career advancement, subtly diminishing my professional trajectory? The uncertainty lingers—whether my principled stance resulted in overlooked promotions or unnoticed salary reductions, despite an expectation of recognition for integrity.

During a pivotal moment, my perspective shifted. In a conversation with the Vice Chairman that evening, an unexpected comment caught my attention. Though the catalyst remains unclear, he candidly stated that the Church’s fundamental purpose was to offer assistance to those in need, effectively reducing its role to that of another charitable organization.

As followers of Christ, we are called to embody both compassion and evangelism. While charitable acts are a vital expression of our faith, our ultimate purpose is to share the transformative message of salvation through Jesus, guiding others toward a deeper understanding of God’s love and redemption.

Our mission transcends mere financial assistance. As the scripture reminds us, true transformation goes beyond monetary gifts—it’s about sharing the profound message of spiritual redemption and eternal hope that can fundamentally change a person’s life trajectory.

Charity serves a vital purpose in addressing immediate physical needs, yet true compassion extends far beyond material support. While alleviating physical suffering is crucial, the far more important transformation of human potential and spirit represents an even more profound form of care and connection.

The United States hosts nearly one million charitable organizations, each with its own mission and approach. However, not all nonprofits are created equal. Some operate with questionable ethics or misaligned priorities, potentially undermining the very causes they claim to support. Donors must exercise due diligence, understanding that financial contributions can inadvertently validate an organization’s methods and messaging.

Personal philanthropy should reflect individual values and comfort levels. When donating, it’s crucial to research organizations thoroughly and feel confident about their mission and financial transparency. Workplace giving campaigns can create uncomfortable dynamics, and employees should always feel empowered to make charitable contributions voluntarily, without feeling coerced or pressured.

Please permit me a story, which I was told to be true. A preacher was attending a a Christmas party where there was a lot of drinking. The host realized it was making the guests uncomfortable for the preacher to mingle without a drink.

At the social gathering, the host discreetly walked over to the preacher and offered a beverage. “Please take this,” he suggested kindly, “The other guests seem a bit uneasy seeing you without a drink. You don’t need to consume it—just holding a glass will help you blend in more comfortably.”

The preacher responded with conviction, “I cannot compromise my integrity by acting contrary to my teachings. Doing so would undermine my credibility and diminish the power of my message.”

Would it be right to preach against The United Way while, apparently giving to it. It would matter not as a witness that the United Way is returning the money to me. Indeed, it would make me appear worse if I was found out.

Better that we call the good, good; and evil, evil.