Just who is a Good Samaritan?
And Jesus answering said, "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to
Jericho, and he fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and
wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain
priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at that
place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed,
came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to
him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own
beast, he brought him to an inn and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took
out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, "Take care of
him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay
thee."" 1 Luke 10:30-36, NKJV
Unfortunately, in modern times,
the Good Samaritan has taken on other less desirable characteristics. Let us revisit the modern Good Samaritan.
What are these characteristics of the modern Good Samaritan? Just…
Who is "The Good Samaritan Revisited?"
Well, the story goes the same way as above until the Good Samaritan chooses
a different inn, and then it takes a turn.
Instead of taking the injured man directly to the inn, he brought him to
his Aunt Emma’s, and asked her what she thought he should do. Aunt Emma told him that she heard of an inn
down the way that could take care of the injured man. Instead of staying overnight, however, the
Good Samaritan left the same day, where he took out two pence, gave them to the
innkeeper while, leaving out the back door, and said, "Take care of him
with the two pence." Because the innkeeper
never saw the Samaritan again, the innkeeper spent the two pence on wine, women, and song, while neglecting the injured man. And the innkeeper raised a sign, which read,
“More Good Samaritans Wanted. Bring Money."
In Luke’s version of “The Good Samaritan,” the Good Samaritan used his
own judgment based on past experience with the inn. He checked out “The Good
Innkeeper” by staying at his inn for a day.
He noticed the room was clean, the meals were on time, and the
innkeeper’s customers were happy. He took care of the injured man
personally. He purposefully made his way
back to repay the innkeeper, and to see what kind of a job the innkeeper did in
taking care of the injured man.
In the modern version of “The Good Samaritan”, The Good Samaritan used
his Aunt Emma’s judgment and experience with the inn. He stayed only long enough to drop off his
charge, and neglected to take care of the injured man personally. He had no
personal experience with the innkeeper’s care.
He purposefully decided never to return to the inn, so he wouldn’t need
to repay the innkeeper, and he neglected to see what kind of a job the
innkeeper did in taking care of the injured man.
Today, most people do not pick up people by the side of the road, in
order to take care of them, given the necessary security precautions modern
life necessitates. However, Americans do
give to charitable institutions that we trust to take care of the sick, poor,
and needy. Whether you are an individual
trying to decide which charitable institution to donate to, the executive of
the charitable institution yourself, or a business executive representing a
business, which donates to charity, there are certain modern guidelines you
should follow.
Even though modern life has changed things, Luke’s Version of “The Good
Samaritan” still has great truths to teach us in dealing with charities. It undertakes
the virtues of personal responsibility, and accountability.
The Good Samaritan Revisited, the one revealed in modern life is
goodhearted, but careless. He may give to
anyone who puts up a shingle, reading, “Reputable Charity.”
Modern life, not withstanding, we have the responsibility of interacting with
our charities not only goodheartedly, but prudently. Like “The Good Samaritan” in the well-known
parable, we still have the responsibility of personally investigating
charities, before we donate to them. We still have the responsibility of making
our way back, to see if the charities need other funds to complete the project,
and to check on the quality of their work. Charities themselves need to
institute procedures that follow through on their tasks, and institute quality
control measures. Luke’s version of “The Good Samaritan” stresses not only good
heartedness, but also personal responsibility, and accountability. Virtues still needed, but not necessarily
headed in our times.
Exhort, and watch your innkeepers.
Just how do you investigate these modern innkeepers of contemporary
times? You can call the Federal Trade
Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection in order to see if any legal
complaints are registered against your charity.2 Your state’s Secretary of State’s office can
tell you if the charity is registered as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit
charity,3 and they can tell you which state laws apply to your
charity.4 Your local state attorney general's office will
tell you if the charity has any legal complaints registered against your
charity. 3
Since business plans are the means that a charity will use to carry out
its goal, you should demand detail written descriptions of the charity's
financial statements, such as Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of
Cash Flows, and Statement of Retained Earnings.
You also want to see mission statements, and business plans.
3 If you find something you don't like demand,
no exhort, that the charity managers change their policy, and refuse to give.
Beware of charities that refuse to give you this information, citing
claims that they don’t have enough staff and time to answer all of your
questions. Out of the ashes of the September 11th attacks in 2001
fake charities that absconded with genuine charity names arose like Phoenixes,
proving you can never be too careful.2 Always pay by check, or credit card. This way you could stop payment on a check, or
dispute the credit card charge with your bank, if you discover the charity was
a fraud. Even for legitimate charities,
cash donations are too easy, and too tempting to embezzle. Too easy to pick a dollar bill or two from
that hat that someone passed.
Charity paid for by other people’s money is not charity. During September 11th tragedy’s
aftermath, it was broadcasted on the CBS news that people were borrowing money
for the United Way’s September 11th Fund.5 Creditors' money is other people’s money. If you never pay off your credit card
debt. It’s not your money. It’s your creditors. You want the full benefit of your goods. Pay
by credit card only by choice, only for convenience, and not on the insistence
of the charity. Pay off your card every month in order to never pay interest on
a credit card loan to a charity.
Follow “The Golden Rule” by applying
accountability.
The Golden Rule, states “Do onto others, as you would have them do onto
you.” Luke’s “Good Samaritan” prudently
checks back with the innkeeper. If you were the injured party wouldn't you want
people to check on your welfare? Apply
accountability; request to tour the charity’s facilities, and ask to talk to
some of the people that the charity helped.
Questions to ask the recipients can include--How were you treated by the
charity? Were you thoroughly helped?
Other questions to ask yourself include--Did you observe the charity
operating in a moral and ethical manner towards everyone, including the
charity’s creditors, its benefactors, the press, the society at large, its
employees, and volunteers? Did the funds
go, where the charity said they would go?
Does the charity have enough funds to meet their goal? Was there a follow up procedural tracking
system in place in order to follow up and help the recipients at a later
time? Does the charity release tax returns
to the public, an IRS requirement? Is
the charity listed in the phone book? Do
they have a public presence, such as a website? 6
If you can, volunteer in order to experience charities actions close at
hand. The “Good Samaritan” in you will work your way back in order to repay the
innkeeper. Check on the innkeeper.
Closely watched innkeepers, are better innkeepers. Remember charities
with nothing to hide will welcome involvement.
Diligently rule over compassionate funds.
Some stays at the inn bring forth good news. Other stays at the inn issue forth careless
innkeepers. What if you yourself can’t personally
volunteer your time, but you still want to know more about another
charity? Both good reports, and exposes
about any charity can be found at your local public, or university library. All
it requires is a valid library card.
Reference librarians can help you research literature about a charity,
or for a substantial fee, they will conduct a computerized literature search of
their databases for you. 7 You
don’t even have to physically access the library. Databases are now available remotely through
your home computer by accessing the Internet.
See your local reference librarian for more information.
Investigate distressing mercy.
Besides reviewing print media at your local library, listening to the
broadcast media is also a good source of information about charitable
activities. By watching the evening
news, and listening to the radio, you can tell you how the recipients of the
charities are treated. For example on
October 26, 2001, it was reported on the CBS news that widows of the World Trade
Center were not being contacted by the charities in a timely enough manner in
order to meet their October home mortgage payments. 5
Avoid complicated giving that appears simple.
All of us have given to charities for less than charitable reasons. We
may feel that in order to be promoted and accepted at work, we need to give to
our employer sponsored charities even though we may have a hard time paying our
own grocery bills, and budgeting for our own financial future. Our giving then becomes complicated, our
ruling over our funds careless, and our mercy is distressing. Automated payroll deductions for charity
looks simple, but in reality is complicated giving, especially if unexpected
personal expenses stretch that paycheck too thin.
Preside with diligence.
Unfortunately, like the modern Good Samaritan, who followed Aunt Emma's
recommendation, today, people will give to charities, just because their
employer invites a charity in for a fund raising chat. Modern American’s assume that their employer
personally investigated the recommended charities. You may assume that your
employer had contacted some of the watchdog organizations, such as The American
Institute of Philanthropy in Bethesda, MD, the Better Business Bureau Wise
Giving Alliance in Arlington, VA, and Better Business Bureaus around the
country that are helpful in overseeing some of the activities of our well-known charities. 8 This may or may not be true. Don't
just give blindly to someone in power's favorite charity. Think for yourself.
Even if your work environment has assigned the Vice President of Public
Affairs the role of approving and investigating company-sponsored charities, he
may not share the ideal of full disclosure.
He may have found unsettling information, but decided not to share
it.
Even worse is that some companies don’t have any type of policy toward
charities at all, and neglect to assign a company watchdog. Charitable endorsements can then sneak
through the back door. My state has a law against this type of misrepresentation. Yours probably does too. “Title 44 Chapter 19” of The Arizona Revised Statutes states that, “knowingly making
a misrepresentation to a person that another person sponsors, endorses, or
approves, the (charitable) solicitation, if the other person has not given consent
in writing to the use of his name for
that purpose,” is a civil penalty.4
Nowadays it is easy for a charity to "borrow" a company logo
off a company website for use on a charity's brochure for an implied
endorsement. And don't say, “Oh that
would never happen.”
When I once worked at a certain
unnamed company, it did happen. Some independent contractor, not even an
employee, borrowed our company’s logo off of a site, in order to push his
favorite charity. He wanted everyone that worked for that company to think that
the company had endorsed the charities.
Well, it worked. All of the
employees thought it was a company approved charity, and then on further
investigation found out differently. After all, my department head was
disseminating an official looking charity brochure with the company logo on it,
and was asking everybody to contribute.
In his defense, he was fooled like the rest of us. He didn’t manufacture the brochure.
It wasn’t like the charity was a
benign charity that everyone supported either.
The charity was involved in a controversy. It was the American Cancer Society and in the
press, it had just announced that it was using aborted fetal cells in its
cancer research. I admit that I was the one that raised the alarm, and my objections
initiated the investigation over who in the company approved the controversial
charity to begin with.
This situation could have easily been avoided. A clear and concise written company policy
that designates a high-ranking official company a gatekeeper, such as the VP of
Public Relations can help prevent misrepresentation. He can look out for fraud, and become the
optimum authority on which charities a company should endorse, and ask its employees to donate to. He can
curtail embarrassing situations. Rule with diligence over your company's, and
your own personal funds.
Teach charitable giving.
In an Arizona Republic article
entitled, “Emotions Drive Moral Decisions, Study Hints,” a
Princeton University researcher study backs a theory that we give voice to the
fact that our moral judgments are based on reason, but we really act on
emotions, and make up reasons for our actions, afterwards. 9 In other words, national awareness, emotional
advertisements, and widespread advertised support of the more familiar
charities does not absolve you from personally investigating the charities to
which you donate money. According to
Jesuit priest James F. Keenen, S.J., in an article, entitled “Telling Right from
Wrong - On Giving Moral Advice”, each person is responsible to God, himself,
and others for forming and following a right conscience. 10 Does actions by your employer's
charity follow "your" own conscience?
Not your employer's, and not your Aunt Emma's. You know, Aunt Emma? She’s the one who told you which inn would
best help take care of the injured man.
Don’t abdicate responsibility, because you believe that the amount of
money isn’t relevant. This virtue of personal responsibility applies whether
the funds involve “The Good Samaritan’s” is two pence, or your two
dollars. It's not the amount; it's the
principle. "He who is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in
much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."1 Luke
16:10, NKJV
If this sounds too complicated, it is. Some professional athletes with philanthropic
hearts, and large wallets have hired researchers, or if you like, professional
charitable giving teachers, to help them choose charities. These researchers
advise the athletes on where they will get the most effective, and efficient
results with their financial gifts, creating a unique business service
opportunity. 11 But with most of us, a little bit of our own
research will suffice to prevent the unscrupulous innkeepers from
thriving.
Simply give.
Stewardship is prudential, and
personal. Instead of making a check out
to a favorite medical charity, you can offer that friend who has cancer your
time. Simply, offer to drive her to the
doctor’s once a week to show your support.
Writing a check can be easy, convenient, and uncomplicated. A Good Samaritan finds that personal time is
hard, timely, neighborly, and unexpected, and sometimes more appreciated then
writing a check to a charity.
Prophesize in faith; heed warnings.
Don't worry about your favorite
cause, not being covered by any charity, due to your lack of giving. Funding an unscrupulous charity, just because
it’s the only one covering your special cause in unjustified. Out of the ashes, scrupulous charities will
rise up as Phoenixes to take their place.
“For I say unto you, That unto every one which has shall be given; and
from him that has not, even that which he has shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would have not
that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before
me." 1 Luke 19:26-28, NKJV
Practice cheerfulness in mercy.
According to Calvin Woodard in an Arizona
Republic article entitled, "Americans
Giving More to Charity, but Trusting Less,” misgivings in giving is up. Cheerfulness
in mercy can't happen when
Americans are suspicious in their giving. 3
You can start to ask questions.
You can stop giving blindly.
You want the full benefit of your goods, and yet, still take care
of your neighbors.
Perform a charitable act.
"Having then gifts differing according to the grace that has been
given us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of
faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teaches, on
teaching; or he that exhorts, on exhortation: he that gives, let him do it with
simplicity; he that rules, with diligence; he that shows mercy, with
cheerfulness." 1 Romans
12:6-8, NKJV
Giving in simplicity, presiding over funds with diligence, mercy with
cheerfulness, exhortation of the truth, prophesizing in proportion to faith
while heeding warnings, and ministering with carefulness, as well as
compassion, all are laudable virtues.
Luke’s, Good Samaritan, never viewed charity as a popularity contest, or
as a convenience. Like the true Good
Samaritan, who stayed at the inn, a little bit of investigating, before giving
to a charity can be a charitable act, in and of itself. 3
Revisit “The Good Samaritan.”
Luke 10:35, and its modern “The Good Samaritan Revisited” version,
highlights two kinds of good-hearted “Good Samaritans.”
In Luke 10:35’s version, “The Good Samaritan”, used his own
judgment based on past experience with the innkeeper. He reacted personally, inconveniently,
carefully, and responsibly.
In its modern version,
“The Good Samaritan Revisited”, used other people’s judgments. He reacted impersonally, conveniently,
carelessly, and irresponsibly.
Of the two versions which of these two Samaritans “proved himself
neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?”
Is it the one who followed “The Golden Rule” and made his way back, “To
love his neighbor, as himself?” Or is it
the one “who paid the innkeeper, and snuck out the back way?”
Is it the one who "at every moment did what love required?" Or is it the one who “took the easy way out?”
You know the answer. It is the one
who “rules with diligence, gives in simplicity, exhorts truthfully, prophesies warnings, ministers with carefulness, as well as compassion, and performs
cheerfulness in mercy.”
Then Jesus said unto him, "Go, and do thou likewise."1
Luke 10:37, NKJV
Footnotes
1 Scriptural quotations
taken from Today’s Parallel Bible, King James Version (c)
2000 by The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530, USA, Used by permission.
2 Maureen West, The Arizona Republic, Editor, Pam Johnson, "Fund-Raising
Scams
Surface", Phoenix Newspapers Inc. 200 E.
Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004,
September 24, 2001, p. A-82.
3 Associated Press Calvin Woodard, The Arizona Republic, Editor, Pam
Johnson,
"Americans Giving More to
Charity, but Trusting Less", Phoenix Newspapers
Inc. 200 E. Van Buren, Phoenix,
AZ 85004, April 24, 1997, p. E-2.
4 “Title 44 Chapter 19”, Arizona Revised Statutes,
2001 Edition.
5 Dan
Rather, Anchorperson, CBS News, Broadcast Date October 26, 2001.
6 Craig Harris, The Arizona Republic, Editor, Pam Johnson, "Athletes’ Charities: A
Mixed Bag", Phoenix Newspapers Inc. 200
E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004,
August 25, 2002, p. C-15.
7 Interview with Carole Towles, Interlibrary
Loan Supervisor, Burton Barr Public
Library, City of Phoenix, Phoenix Public
Library, 1221 North Central Avenue,
Phoenix, AZ 85004, October 25, 2001.
8 Diego Ibarguen,
Associated Press, The Arizona Republic, Editor, Pam
Johnson,
"Red Cross Redirects
Liberty Fund", Phoenix Newspapers Inc. 200 E. Van Buren,
Phoenix, AZ 85004, October 30,
2001, p. A-5
The Arizona Republic, Editor, Pam Johnson, Phoenix Newspapers Inc.
200 E. Van
Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004,
October 22, 2001, p. E-1.
10 James F. Keenan, S.J., “Telling
Right from Wrong - On Giving Moral Advice”,
Catholic Digest, Richard J. Reece, Editor, University of St.
Thomas, 2115 Summit
Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105,
July 1996, pp. 78-83.
