top of page
Search

A New Gospel of Wealth for the 21st Century: Urgency, Equity, and Local Power

  • Writer: Brianna Miller
    Brianna Miller
  • Apr 7
  • 5 min read


Introduction to the Series: Reimagining the Gospel of Wealth


Philanthropy is undergoing a transformation—and it must. In a world shaped by inequality, climate crisis, and systemic injustice, the old models of giving no longer serve us. We need a new framework. A new ethos. A new gospel.


This two-part series explores what I call "The New Gospel of Wealth"—a modern, equity-rooted, people-centered approach to giving that challenges who we think donors are, how impact is measured, and what it means to love humanity through action.


In Part 1, we look at how Marc Suzman and others are reshaping traditional philanthropic models with urgency and boldness. In Part 2, we expand the conversation to include everyone—because philanthropy belongs to all of us.


Thanks for going on this journey with me!


Part 1: The New Gospel of Wealth—Why Philanthropy Must Be Urgent, Equitable, and Bold


What if the wealthiest people on Earth could prevent climate collapse, end hunger, and rebuild the safety net—all before the decade is over?


In January 2024, Marc Suzman, CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, issued a bold challenge to today’s billionaires: give more, and give now. He called on the ultra-wealthy to move beyond legacy giving and toward urgent, equity-driven philanthropy that meets the moment. His message echoes Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth — but updates it for a world in crisis.


Suzman’s vision represents The Gospel of Wealth for the 21st Century—a transformational shift in philanthropy that builds on the past but updates it for today’s global challenges.


The Original Gospel of Wealth: A Legacy of Responsibility

Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth was groundbreaking in its time. Written in 1889, it called on the wealthy to use their fortunes for the public good—to fund institutions that could help people lift themselves out of poverty. Carnegie believed that the rich were the best stewards of their wealth and had a moral obligation to improve society. This philosophy laid the foundation for modern philanthropy, establishing that wealth should be actively used to benefit the broader public.


Suzman’s 21st Century Gospel: Urgency and Equity

"Philanthropy can fill gaps that would otherwise be overlooked or underfunded," Suzman writes in his 2024 call. While building on Carnegie’s legacy, Suzman’s approach is fundamentally different in two key areas: immediacy and equity.


Today’s challenges demand swift action. Climate crises, pandemics, and inequality require the wealthy to give now, not later. Unlike Carnegie’s focus on long-term infrastructure projects, Suzman calls for the ultra-wealthy to deploy their resources immediately to make a tangible difference. Waiting for wealth to accumulate won’t solve the problems of today.


Suzman also emphasizes equity — an element largely absent from Carnegie’s original philosophy. Suzman’s call is not about wealthy elites dictating how their money is spent but about community-driven philanthropy, where those most affected by crises are directly involved in decision-making. He advocates for participatory grantmaking and trust-based philanthropy, where marginalized voices guide the allocation of resources.


Reimagining Equity in Philanthropy

True equity in philanthropy goes beyond writing a check—it means shifting who makes decisions, defines impact, and holds power.


  • Community Control: Marginalized communities must have a seat at the table—not just as beneficiaries, but as co-creators. This means moving from charity for communities to change by communities.


  • Funding Movements, Not Just Moments: Equity-centered giving means investing in long-term capacity building—not just one-time projects. Philanthropy must trust local leaders, fund operational costs, and support healing, organizing, and systems change.


  • Reparative Giving: For some communities, particularly Black and Indigenous groups, equity also means reparations—an intentional effort to repair historical harm. That includes acknowledging how wealth was accumulated and redistributing it in ways that confront that legacy.


Suzman’s model encourages this shift, but the philanthropic sector at large must still reckon with its colonial roots and the uncomfortable question: Who has historically been excluded from shaping the future?


The Philanthropy Paradox: Why Don’t More Billionaires Act?

Despite the compelling cases of Feeney and Chouinard, most ultra-wealthy individuals continue to hoard wealth or give through traditional, slow-moving channels. Why?


  • Reputation Over Risk: Many philanthropists prefer low-risk giving to institutions with name recognition (e.g., Ivy League schools or hospitals), where they receive praise and naming rights, rather than funding grassroots movements that may challenge existing power structures.


  • Tax Incentives and Power Dynamics: The current system often allows wealthy donors to maintain influence through charitable foundations, sometimes indefinitely. This can lead to philanthropy that reflects personal preferences rather than urgent global needs or community priorities.


  • The Illusion of Impact: Some philanthropic efforts are more about optics than outcomes—what some call "philanthrocapitalism." Without mechanisms for community accountability, donations risk reinforcing the same inequalities they aim to address.


Philanthropy, when driven by urgency and equity, should not be charity that soothes guilt or protects legacies—it must be a tool for justice that redistributes both wealth and power.


Humble Philanthropists: The Feeney Effect

Suzman’s call for urgent giving echoes the philosophy of Chuck Feeney, the “billionaire who gave it all away.” Feeney, founder of Duty Free Shoppers, quietly donated nearly his entire $8 billion fortune, choosing to give without the spotlight. Feeney’s "giving while living" philosophy is a perfect example of how to align with Suzman’s 21st-century gospel: act now, fund high-impact initiatives, and make a difference in real time.


Likewise, Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, transferred ownership of his company to a trust to direct all profits toward environmental action. Chouinard’s selfless, innovative approach to philanthropy aligns with Suzman’s focus on urgent and transformational giving, challenging traditional wealth management models.


Suzman himself highlights Feeney’s legacy as a critical example of modern-day philanthropy that balances giving to elite institutions with contributions that meet basic human needs globally. Feeney’s dual-giving strategy—funding his alma mater while also addressing urgent global challenges—mirrors the type of philanthropy that Suzman believes is necessary today: an approach that fills critical gaps in global development and equity.


Coming Up in Part 2: What If We Redefined Philanthropy?

Let’s Sankofa this—let’s go back to the roots of the true intention behind philanthropy. In its original meaning, philanthropy was never just about money. It was about love for humankind. It was about service, care, and mutual responsibility.


The next installment of this series explores how philanthropy can move beyond elite donors to empower everyday givers, especially those whose generosity has been historically overlooked. We'll also explore why local giving is essential in an era of shrinking public funding and how we can rewrite the story of who holds philanthropic power in the first place.


References


  • Marc Suzman’s Article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy - Suzman’s urgent appeal for billionaires to act.


  • Marc Suzman’s 2024 Annual Letter - Explores global inclusivity in philanthropy. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


  • Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth - The original call for the redistribution of wealth for societal benefit. Learner.org.


  • Chuck Feeney’s Legacy - The quiet billionaire who gave it all away. Forbes.


  • Yvon Chouinard and Patagonia - Radical giving through business profits for climate action. The New York Times.


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page