It’s been quite a week for watching the philanthropic parade go by — featuring gifts in size from one extreme to another and given through the widest variety of methods and channels in history.

From the birth of Baby Max Zuckerberg and her parents’ $45 billion gift in her honor to be used toward “improving this world for he next generation” … to the seasonal appearance of the Salvation Army’s Red Kettle on malls and street corners (and online) … to the record-setting results of #Giving Tuesday you’ll find here.

It’s also been quite a week for snark.

As a puzzled Tom and several equally puzzled Agitator readers noted yesterday, the Zuckerberg generosity escaped neither carping cynicism nor the second-guessing of policy experts. And #GivingTuesday garnered its perennial crop of criticism. I think the only philanthropic channel that escaped the snark attack was the ubiquitous Red Kettle.

Don’t get me wrong. Here at The Agitator we’re clearly all for challenge and constructive criticism. We’re also firmly in favor of curiosity. And what makes me curious is this: why, at a time when the world is so desperately in need of a diverse range of philanthropy is there so much questioning and criticism over the increasingly diverse sources and uses of philanthropic giving?

I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I suspect some of the condemnation of new forms of philanthropy stem from the mere fact that the status quo is being challenged. Some of the disapproval springs from legitimate concerns involving tax policy and income inequality, and some from the undeniable fact that how good works are funded is changing dramatically — and at warp speed.

Personally, I’m delighted that the Zuckerbergs chose to combine prosperity, parenthood and public relations with a desire to make the world a better place. And I’m equally delighted that someone speeding through a mall on their way to snag an X-Box bargain stops to put a few dollars in the Red Kettle. And that my friends reminded me (over and over and over ad nausea) that it was #Giving Tuesday.

Professionally, I’m equally grateful that there are serious folks out there asking serious questions about the pay-out practices of community foundations and the commercial donor-advised funds like Fidelity, Vanguard and Schwab that now make up 5 of the 10 largest charities in the U.S. After all, billions in tax deductions are granted to their donors, there is little transparency into their operations, and despite the cost to taxpayers; the money never has to be distributed to charity.

And the questions go on and on. About foundations and their practices. About the so-called ‘charitable’ activities of mega-billionaires. And about the telephone boiler rooms that rob and deceive 90 year-old widows out of millions on behalf of the phony veteran, cancer or sick children causes they claim to represent.

Given the volume and diversity of ‘philanthropic’ activity now exploding it’s easy to become cynical and overly suspicious. Frankly, I prefer rejoicing over all the new ways to give.

How about you?

Roger

P.S. For a first rate audio tour of the philanthropic horizon I commend National Public Radio’s Tom Ashbrook and his Charity Today/On Point segment broadcast on #GivingTuesday. Terrifc insights from a diverse group of journalists, academics, and practitioners.