emily martin working draft

7/23/2019 Emily Martin Working Draft

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/emily-martin-working-draft 1/38



Martin 2

25Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “What

must I do to inherit eternal life?” 2!e said to him, “What is written in thelaw? What do you read there?” 2"!e answered, “#ou shall lo$e the %ord your

&od with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your stren'th, andwith all your mind( and your nei'h)or as yourself.” 2*+nd he said to him,“#ou ha$e 'i$en the ri'ht answer( do this, and you will li$e.”

2-ut wantin' to ustify himself, he as/ed Jesus, “+nd who is

my nei'h)or?” 01Jesus replied, “+ man was 'oin' down from Jerusalem to

Jericho, and fell into the hands of ro))ers, who stripped him, )eat him, andwent away, lea$in' him half dead. 0 3ow )y chance a priest was 'oin' down

that road( and when he saw him, he passed )y on the other side. 024o li/ewise

a %e$ite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed )y on the other side.

00-ut a 4amaritan while tra$elin' came near him( and when he saw him, he

was mo$ed with pity. 0!e went to him and )anda'ed his wounds, ha$in'

poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, )rou'hthim to an inn, and too/ care of him. 05The ne6t day he too/ out two denarii,

and 'a$e them to the inn/eeper, and said, 7Ta/e care of him( and when I come

)ac/, I will repay you whate$er more you spend.8 0Which of these three, doyou thin/, was a nei'h)or to the man who fell into the hands of the ro))ers?”0"

!e said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “&o and doli/ewise.”

The Modern Good Samaritan: Introduction

1 %u/e 1925:0" ;3<4=>

“And They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our o!e":

#e!elo$in% a &hilanthro$ic Ima%ination 'or the Church

mily Martin

March ", 215

@r. Jones

<eli'ion 4enior 4eminar



Martin 0

Aerhaps one of the most iconic para)les of Jesus is the story of the &ood

4amaritan B not only )ecause it is a popular story within the Christian tradition, )ut also

)ecause it ser$es as the ori'in for what we now call a “do:'ooder.” When we call a

person B or a hospital or or'aniDation B a &ood 4amaritan, we in$o/e this story.

!owe$er, we do not 'i$e the &ood 4amaritan of the story nearly enou'h credit. This

character was not simply doin' a sin'ular 'ood deed for a friend( he made a lon':term

commitment to help someone he would ha$e )een e6pected to completely i'nore.2 -ein'

a &ood 4amaritan, therefore, should su''est ta/in' radical, comprehensi$e action in

order to truly lo$e our nei'h)ors.

2

+my:Jill %e$ine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial

Rabbi ;3ew #or/9 !arperCollins, 21>, , 10.



Martin

What we also cannot afford to o$erloo/ is that this story si'nificantly e6pands what

would later )e characteriDed as the “&reat Commandment”9 “#ou shall lo$e the %ord

your &od with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your stren'th, and with

all your mind( and your nei'h)or as yourself.” These teachin's appear in the Eld

Testament ;@eut. 95 and %e$. 9*>, and Jesus is in$o/in' those passa'es. -ut he is the

first to use neighbor to mean any fellow human, as opposed to ust people who li$e in the

same 'eo'raphic area.0 If this story can )e considered the ori'in of the “&reat

Commandment,” which some ar'ue the entire tradition is )ased on, then it must )e

considered important, e$en for today. +s 4cottish e$an'elist !enry @rummond wrote in

his *" )oo/ The Greatest Thing in the World , “The test of reli'ion, the final test of

reli'ion, is not reli'iousness, )ut lo$e.”5 -ecause we should )e a)le to ac/nowled'e the

$alue of nei'h)or:lo$e B )oth inside and out of a reli'ious conte6t B the su)ect is still

rele$ant. If the story and the commandment contri)uted to the de$elopment of the

tradition, and the tradition is still pre$alent in our society, then these stories are worth

re$isitin'.

3

+nders 3y'ren, Agae and Eros ! 3ew #or/9 !arper F <ow, >, 0 and Moffatt,

James. "ove in the #e$ Testament ;%ondon9 !odder and 4tou'hton, 2>, 10.4

3y'ren, *.

5

!enry @rummond, The Greatest Thing in the World ;&rand <apids9 -a/er Au)lishin'

&roup, 21>, 50.



Martin 5

We are not supposed to ust read a powerful te6t li/e the &reat Commandment.

We are called to act on it. We can moderniDe stories li/e the para)le of the &ood

4amaritan to thin/ a)out how we as indi$iduals should treat our fellow humans. The

story can remind us to ta/e lar'er steps to lo$e our nei'h)or B committin' to a monthly

ser$ice proect as opposed to ma/in' a one:time donation, for e6ample. Ef course, this is

not to su''est that smaller acts are not meanin'ful, )ut we should always as/ oursel$es if

we could )e doin' more.

$en thou'h this story is written a)out an indi$idual helpin' another indi$idual,

its lesson is rele$ant for or'aniDations. This paper will propose connectin' the ideolo'y

of an indi$idual8s actions to the wor/ of much lar'er 'roups and their wor/. Just as we

should as/ oursel$es as indi$iduals if we could )e doin' more to lo$e our nei'h)or, on a

collecti$e scale, we can ma/e the same case for our or'aniDations and institutions. “+s

much as it has e$ol$ed since ancient times, philanthropy has still )een associated with the

7&reat Commandment.8 This teachin' li/ely prompts a similar widespread $iew of

philanthropy as the pu)lic institution of lo$in' our nei'h)or.”"

Ideally, since

or'aniDations are collections of indi$iduals wor/in' towards a common 'oal, the chan'e

they enact should )e )roader and more efficient. Therefore, we should )e a)le to turn to

the nonprofit sector B particularly Christian or'aniDations B to see e6amples of nei'h)or:

lo$e )ein' li$ed, tau'ht, and spread.

6

While this paper is written with a Christian audience in mind, it is my )elief that the

ideas and lessons )rou'ht forth )y these stories and the forthcomin' analysis are rele$ant

and important notions to thin/ a)out as mem)ers of a 'lo)al community.7

mily Martin, ““Creatin' a Ahilanthropic Ima'ination”9 <eima'inin' %o$e,

Ahilanthrocapitalism, and Communication.” ;4enior 4eminar, Transyl$ania Gni$ersity,

21>, 2.



Martin

The &arameters o' o!e: Methods and Goals

Turnin' a spotli'ht on Christian or'aniDations is important as a way to 'et a sense

of the rhetorical methods they use to succeed in a competiti$e mar/et. +ccordin' to the

Gr)an Institute Center on 3onprofits and Ahilanthropy, there are more than . million

nonprofit or'aniDations in the G.4., creatin' a field that is 'rowin' faster than for:profit

and 'o$ernment sectors.* #et only .H of +merican nonprofits are “reli'ion:related.”

These reli'ious or'aniDations, thou'h they ma/e up a small proportion of the total

num)er of nonprofits, do recei$e the hi'hest percenta'e of all charita)le donations, at

0H.1 This statistic does not surprise us, as we reco'niDe the fact that reli'ious faith

moti$ates people to 'i$e. Aerhaps we should ha$e different e6pectations for those

reli'ion:related or'aniDations, as they seem to )e particularly successful in a $ery

competiti$e mar/et.2 +s scholars relatin' te6ts to contemporary action, we want to

su''est that Christian or'aniDations are respondin' to the call of the &reat

Commandment, as told in the para)le of the &ood 4amaritan.

8

“3onprofits.” The %rban &nstitute, http9www.ur)an.or'nonprofitsinde6.cfm.9

-rice 4. Mcee$er and 4arah %. Aettiohn, “The 3onprofit 4ector in -rief9 Au)lic

Charities, &i$in', and =olunteerin', 21.” ;Center on #onrofits and Philanthroy.

The Gr)an Institute, 21>, .

10

I)id., .

11

Matthew -ishop and Michael &reen, Philanthrocaitalism: 'o$ Giving Can Save the

World . ;3ew #or/9 -looms)ury, 211>, 02.

12

Thou'h this report uses “reli'ion:related” as a 'eneral term, not specifyin'

denominations or traditions, this paper will focus on Christianity for the sa/e of scope.



Martin "

The ar'ument throu'hout this proect is that the connection we want to )elie$e is

stron'ly e$ident B the one )etween ancient teachin's and contemporary actions B may not

)e as consistent as we would hope. -y returnin' to those teachin's, )oth in the -i)le and

in later scholarship, we will )e reminded how radical the idea of agae, of truly )ein' a

&ood 4amaritan, really is. #et all hope is not lost. We can use these foundational

teachin's, reima'inin' them for a modern conte6t, to de$elop a hilanthroic

imagination.

To solidify this ar'ument, this paper will e6plore three spheres of analysis.

Kirst, as scholars of reli'ion we must 'o )ac/ to foundational te6ts. -y loo/in' more

closely at Canonical and early Christian writin's a)out nei'h)or:lo$e, we can 'round our

$alues and $isions, remindin' oursel$es of the te6ts that inspired the de$elopment of the

reli'ious tradition. Aarticularly, it will )e important to e6amine writin's from John and

of the +cts of the +postles, as they pro$ide stron' e6amples of the early Jesus

mo$ement8s understandin' of agae. To e6tend our understandin' of how the theme of

nei'h)or:lo$e de$eloped, we will ne6t e6plore wor/s )y scholars of Christianity. -y

doin' so, we will create a firmer te6tual foundation from which to mo$e forward. Kor if

we are to connect our present and our future with a reli'ious tradition, we must /eep

oursel$es connected to the tradition8s )e'innin's, e$en if we merely ac/nowled'e it as a

historical startin' point.



Martin *

3e6t, we will use this foundation to )uild an ideolo'y of what a “&ood

4amaritan” type would loo/ li/e. -y creatin' this ideolo'y, we will also )e ima'inin'

what the Christian church and its affiliated or'aniDations, as well as its 'eneral

community, would )e li/e if we reima'ined that nei'h)or:lo$e of the &ood 4amaritan

para)le. In doin' so, we will de$elop the notion of the hilanthroic imagination for the

church. Kor now, we can consider this concept an application of nei'h)or:lo$e into daily

and or'aniDational life.

To )e truly effecti$e, we will finally compare this ideal type to the real

we)sites of three prominent Christian or'aniDations to see how well they fit with those

foundational teachin's. The we)sites and mission statements of !a)itat for !umanity,

!eifer International, and the #oun' Men8s Christian +ssociation ;#MC+> will )e

rhetorically analyDed throu'h the ideolo'ical method of rhetorical criticism, )ased on the

fact that an ideolo'y determines interpretations.0 This proect is most interested in these

or'aniDations8 stated connections to e6istin' Christian ideolo'y, so this method is ideal.

“The primary 'oal of the ideolo'ical critic is to disco$er and ma/e $isi)le

the dominant ideolo'y or ideolo'ies em)edded in an artifact and the ideolo'ies

that are )ein' muted in it. +s a result of an ideolo'ical analysis, a critic see/s to

e6plicate the role of communication in creatin' and sustainin' an ideolo'y and to

'i$e $oice to those whose interests are not represented.”

13

Koss, 4ona . “<hetorical Criticism9 6ploration and Aractice.” th ed. ;%on' &ro$e,

I%9 Wa$eland Aress, Inc. 211>, 21.14

I)id., 20.



Martin

Eur optimistic hypothesis 'oin' into this analysis would )e that the ideolo'y of

agae a la the &reat Commandment would function as a he'emonic ideolo'y on these

Christian or'aniDation8s we)sites, and presuma)ly influencin' their actions. +fter all, this

teachin' is central to the tradition, and therefore could )e assumed to )e inte'ral to the

mission of institutions that affiliate themsel$es with the tradition. To Lualify as such, the

ideolo'y “must )e renewed, reinforced, and defended continually throu'h the use of

rhetorical strate'ies and practices.”5 +s will )e ar'ued in this section, these

or'aniDational we)sites actualiDe the ideolo'y of nei'h)or:lo$e with $aryin' le$els of

effecti$eness, causin' us to thin/ critically a)out their Christian connections. The conclusions will connect these sections in order to create a call to action

inspired )y this hilanthroic imagination. Therefore, it is necessary to ac/nowled'e that

this proect will ser$e as a seLuel to a pre$ious introduction to the hilanthroic

imagination, and therefore will utiliDe the same structural features and will include some

o$erlap in source material. What distin'uishes the two proects is the focus each applies.

The first, “Creatin' a Ahilanthropic Ima'ination,” relies on some reli'ious sources, )ut

only as a )asis for esta)lishin' an understandin' of agae, which may )e understood as a

word encapsulatin' the nei'h)or:lo$e spotli'hted in the &ood 4amaritan para)le. It then

turns its attention to the )roader conte6ts of modern philanthrocapitalism and

under'raduate communication pro'rams. This second proect will maintain the focus on

the Christian tradition throu'hout.

15

I)id., 22.16

+s in the first installment, it is critical to ac/nowled'e that althou'h other reli'ions and

national or'aniDations certainly ha$e made rele$ant contri)utions, Christianity and the

Gnited 4tates will )e the sole focus for the sa/e of personal familiarity and scope.



Martin 1

When we critiLue modern Christian or'aniDations, which we mi'ht optimistically

assume follow the tradition8s teachin's e$en more faithfully than we may )e a)le to as

indi$iduals, we will disco$er a disparity )etween our e6pectations of what is ideal and

what is real. While aspects of this analysis may seem disappointin' and pessimistic, the

final conclusions will hopefully restore some of our optimism a)out our tradition, its

teachin's, and its potential to continually enact real chan'e for our li$es and the li$es of

our nei'h)ors B whoe$er they may )e.

In the (e%innin% Was o!e: )oundational Groundin% o' Agape The story of the &ood 4amaritan is an important story to the Christian

tradition )ecause it is a story of lo$e B more specifically, agae. To more fully understand

this connection, it is necessary to 'round it in foundational te6ts. Kirst, John and +cts

ser$e as stron' e6amples of agae8s canoniDation. 4econd, this connection was further

institutionaliDed throu'h the writin's of prominent early Christian writers. Kinally, the

concept of agae will )e more fully deciphered throu'h a closer loo/ at the &ood

4amaritan para)le. -y doin' so, we will ha$e a much stron'er foundation with which to

proceed toward a modern hilanthroic imagination.



Martin

To )uild this foundation, we must turn first to 4cripture. John reads9

“-elo$ed, let us lo$e one another, )ecause lo$e is from &od( e$eryone who lo$es is )orn

of &od and /nows &od. Whoe$er does not lo$e does not /now &od, for &od is lo$e.” In

the same chapter, the author writes, “We lo$e )ecause he first lo$ed us.”" These $erses

ma/e a clear case for the wei'ht lo$e holds in the Christian tradition B after all, the $alue

is )ein' eLuated with &od. John reminds us first that lo$e comes from &od and

second, that therefore we must lo$e one another, callin' to mind the &reat

Commandment. Krom John8s first epistle we learn that the eLuatin' of lo$e with the &od

of Christianity is not merely an understanda)le connection to ma/e, )ut a critically

important concept already in e6istence.

The +cts of the +postles, which tells the story of the early church8s de$elopment

throu'h the <oman mpire, pro$ides e$idence to support connectin' that lo$e with the

tradition of Christianity as well. Krom the $ery )e'innin', the apostles and other )elie$ers

acted out of lo$e9 “+ll who )elie$ed were to'ether and had all thin's in common( they

would sell their possessions and 'oods and distri)ute the proceeds to all, as had any

need.”* +s the earliest Christian communities 'rew, e$eryone seemed to ta/e care of one

another9 “There was not a needy person amon' them, for as many as owned lands or

houses sold them and )rou'ht the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles8

feet, and it was distri)uted to each as any had need.” These $erses certainly spea/ to the

sense of community that e6isted as a part of the Christian tradition.

17

John 9":*, ;3<4=>

18

+cts 29:5 ;3<4=>19

+cts 90:05 ;3<4=>



Martin 2

These $erses do not use the word love li/e the John $erses, )ut its presence is

clear. If we recall the definition of agae as a uni$ersal lo$e for humanity, then the

anecdotes in +cts ma/e sense. The act of sharin' all of one8s possessions with their

community is certainly an act in lo$in' one8s nei'h)ors. These later $erses are important

to our foundational understandin' of nei'h)or:lo$e )ecause no term, not e$en a powerful

one li/e agae, has any real meanin' for a community until it is conte6tualiDed. 4o

)ecause the )oo/s of John and +cts pro$ide canonical e$idence for the si'nificance of

agae( the concept is important to a contemporary con$ersation a)out nei'h)or:lo$e in

Christianity. This connection )etween agae and Christianity was only stren'thened as

the tradition de$eloped. +u'ustine, a 3orth +frican )ishop and theolo'ian ;circa 11>

whose writin's are amon' the most influential for Western Christianity, considered agae

to )e the heart of Christianity, and that conception has essentially 'one unaltered as the

tradition de$eloped.21 3y'ren writes9 “+'ape comes to us as a Luite new creation of

Christianity. It sets its mar/ on e$erythin' in Christianity. Without it nothin' that is

Christian would )e Christian. +'ape is Christianity8s own ori'inal )asic conception.”2

What ma/es this lo$e so uniLuely central to the tradition is how Christianity e6panded it.

To show a'ape is to truly )e share a universal love for humanity in the )roadest sense.

This de$elopment clearly shows the importance that agae, and therefore the &ood

4amaritan para)le, has to the Christian community.

20

3y'ren, Agae and Eros, 51.21

I)id., *.



Martin 0

This understandin' of agae has not disappeared )etween the days of +u'ustine

and us. We may not use the &ree/ word in con$ersations outside of the academy or the

church, )ut we do still reco'niDe its presence. The force of agae can certainly )e applied

to social ustice mo$ements of today. In their 212 “po$erty manifesto” The Rich and the

Rest of %s( prominent political commentators Ta$is 4miley and Cornel West write9

“%o$e for us means e$eryone is worthy of a life of di'nity and decency B

ust )ecause. 3ot )ecause of where they were )orn, who they /now, where they

li$e, where they were educated, where they wor/, or what the siDe of their annual

income is. The sheer humanity of each and e$ery one of us warrants our steadfast

commitment to the well:)ein' of each other”22

4miley and West do not use the word agae, )ut it is certainly the force )ehind

their thou'hts on how we should treat others and )e'in to sol$e the pro)lems our nation

faces. Their definition may )e less academic, )ut it is certainly fittin'. Their wor/ may

reach audience mem)ers that ha$e ne$er heard of the term agae as we understand it, )ut

their words spea/ to a $ery human emotion in all of us. They write a)out the “sheer

humanity” as the only reason needed to ustify helpin' others B perfectly ali'nin' with

our definition of agae. It is clear then, that this lo$e, as descri)ed in the &reat

Commandment and e6emplified in the para)le of the &ood 4amaritan, is not only a

concept to e6plore in ancient teachin's. It is one still applica)le for a modern conte6t.

Thou'h we ha$e esta)lished its stron' foundational 'roundin' in Christianity, agae can

)e seen as a truly uni$ersal $alue. +nythin' less would )e doin' the concept and its

ori'ins a disser$ice.

22

Ta$is 4miley and Cornel West, The Rich and the Rest of %s. ;3ew #or/9 4miley-oo/s,

212>, 0:05.



Martin

Ideal o!e: The “Good Samaritan" Ideolo%y and the Philanthropic

Imagination



Martin 5

+t this point in the analysis, we /now that the Christian tradition holds agae as a central

$alue. +fter reco'niDin' that connection, we can esta)lish an ideal form of that concept.

@oin' so is not to say that the ideal is the only way to )e truly li$in' out $alues li/e

agae. +s humans, the ideal is impossi)le to constantly achie$e. !owe$er, an ideal type

is $alua)le for two reasons9 an ideal 'i$es us a 'oal to stri$e for, ser$in' as a present

reminder to continue li$in' these $alues, and it also ser$es as a standard with which to

compare aspects of our conte6tual reality. Therefore, creatin' this ideolo'y will )e

)eneficial when we connect contemporary actions to those foundational $alues. The ideal

form of a “&ood 4amaritan” created in this section has three characteristics9 lo$e,

eLuality, and commitment. Those Lualities correlate with three le$els of understandin'9

theory, pra6is, and sustaina)ility. ach of these pairs will )e e6plored indi$idually in

order to ha$e a )etter understandin' of how they fit to'ether. +fter esta)lishin' that

ideolo'y, we will connect it to the concept of the hilanthroic imagination, a modern

reima'ined form of the character from the -i)lical para)le. +fter doin' so, it will )e time

to compare our understandin' of the ideal to e6amples of the real in Christian charities.

)Good Samaritan* &deology

The first Luality of our ideal “&ood 4amaritan” is lo$e. There is no dou)t that the

&ood 4amaritan is actin' on agae. +s already esta)lished in the introduction, a

4amaritan would ha$e )een e6pected to i'nore a Jew needin' help )ecause the two

'roups were considered enemies in that first century conte6t.20 #et, “when he saw him, he

23

4ee %e$ine, chapter 2 for a more detailed e6planation of the conte6t of this para)le.



Martin

was mo$ed with pity.”2 4omethin' caused him to help the hurt tra$eler anyways, and it is

not so difficult for us to ima'ine what that somethin' was. +s the foundational principle

of this ideolo'y, agae is certainly a /ind of force that can o$ercome cultural differences

li/e these. Ideally, this universal love for humanity is much stron'er than any preudice or

stereotype a)out an outside 'roup.+n important Lualifier of the lo$e that distin'uishes the “&ood 4amaritan” type is that it

must )e understood as comin' from &od. We can ma/e that connection a reLuirement

)ecause the &ood 4amaritan para)le is te6tually surrounded )y the &reat Commandment.

This story is 'i$en as Jesus8 e6ample to e6plain the commandment to lo$e &od and lo$e

your nei'h)or as yourself. -y now we /now that this connection ma/es sense( our lo$e

for our nei'h)or comes directly from our lo$e for and from &od. “+nd as all Christians

/now there is another way of 'i$in' to &od( e$ery stran'er who we feed or clothe is

Christ.”25 +s humans made in the ima'e of &od,2 we reco'niDe that the lo$e we share

with the rest of humanity is a direct response to &odly lo$e. Kor this reason, agae must

)e considered the foundational principle of the “&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y. That lo$e is

the theory )ehind the action and sustaina)ility of truly li$in' out this type. It is what

informs and inspires the actions of the &ood 4amaritan, )ut without the later steps, this

ideolo'y would remain only a theory.

24

%u/e 1900 ;3<4=>25

Cli$e 4taples %ewis, The +our "oves. ;4an @ie'o9 !arcourt -race Jo$ano$ich,

Au)lishers, Inc., 1>, "*.26

4ee &en. 92".



Martin "

The second essential Luality of this ideolo'y ta/es that theory a step further, applyin' it

to the world. To )e an ideal &ood 4amaritan, one must act on that &odly lo$e. Agae is to

)e shared. +'ain, with this para)le, Jesus e6pands our understandin' in a new way.2" That

action, )ecause it is )uilt on agae, must )e shared with e$eryone eLually B no matter

who they are. This characteristic )uilds off of the same understandin' of the para)le as

the first one, reco'niDin' that the &ood 4amaritan acted to help someone he would ha$e

)een culturally e6pected to a$oid.

#et, these two characteristics are $ery different in terms of form. The first feature

of agae is the theory that informs this second step as pra6is. Kor the &ood 4amaritan,

and therefore for Christians, it is not enou'h to hold the )elief. To truly wor/ towards this

ideal, and )y doin' so truly li$in' out the teachin's of the tradition, one must li$e out that

lo$e. “4uch Christian lo$e is more than 'oodwill or a readiness to )e on 'ood terms with

people, for the true disciple, Jesus teaches, must ta/e the initiati$e, and show an acti$e

interest in his fellows, )y a$ailin' himself of e$ery opportunity to do them 'ood.”2* To )e

true to these teachin's, then, it is not enou'h to remain in the theoretical sta'e B lo$e is

not only an idea to thin/ a)out, it is a way of li$in', an action worth ta/in'. This second

step is ust as critical to the ideolo'y of the &ood 4amaritan as the first.

27

Ef course, ust )ecause Jesus8 interpretation of lo$e is e6pansi$e in this way does notmean that another reli'ion8s interpretation does not also reach the same conclusion.

+'ain, I am focusin' on Christianity solely for the sa/e of scope.28

Moffatt, 1.



Martin *

Thirdly, the &ood 4amaritan is more than someone who acts out of lo$e. What

ma/es the &ood 4amaritan uniLue, and therefore an ideal type is the lon':term chan'e he

'enerates. Aerhaps that is why he )ecomes such a popular -i)lical character B we admire

the &ood 4amaritan for 'oin' a)o$e and )eyond what we would consider normal

)eha$ior in such a situation. When the 4amaritan sees the tra$eler hurt on the side of the

road, “!e went to him and )anda'ed his wounds, ha$in' poured oil and wine on them.

Then he put him on his own animal, )rou'ht him to an inn, and too/ care of him. The

ne6t day he too/ out two denarii, and 'a$e them to the inn/eeper, and said, 7Ta/e care of

him( and when I come )ac/, I will repay you whate$er more you spend.8”2

The &ood

4amaritan did not ust clean the man8s wounds, or ta/e him to an inn to reco$er. !e too/

these actions and more B wor/in' to ensure that the man made a full reco$ery.

It is this third element of the “&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y that correlates with the

le$el of sustaina)ility in this typolo'y. The e6tent of the &ood 4amaritan8s action is what

ma/es the character truly uniLue. It is what ma/es this ideal type somethin' to stri$e

towards B )ecause such e6treme, lon':term action does seem so out of the ordinary.

When we thin/ of the systemic pro)lems our world is attemptin' to sol$e, howe$er, such

“e6treme” actions ma/e sense. While donatin' a meal to someone who is hun'ry is a

worthwhile act, we /now that the same person will )e hun'ry a'ain tomorrow, and for

days to come until chan'es are made in their life on a lar'er scale. We certainly do not

li/e to thin/ of such pro)lems in these star/ terms. We li/e to feel as thou'h ma/in' a

small or one:time donation is doin' our part.

29

%u/e 190:05 ;3<4=>



Martin

+'ain, the ar'ument )ein' made here is not to discoura'e ma/in' those

smaller:scale donations, )ecause any ser$ice is )etter than none, )ut if we are really

wantin' to ma/e a difference, if we are )ein' honest with oursel$es a)out what Christian

teachin's are callin' us to do, then surely there is much more to “doin' our part” than

donatin' a couple cans or writin' a sin'le chec/. To )e a “&ood 4amaritan,” we must

lon' far )eyond oursel$es B not ust to other people, )ut further away in time and scope.

Ef course we must act on the lo$e from &od, )ut for that lo$e to truly mean anythin', we

ha$e to sustain that action. -y doin' so, we are sustainin' the lo$e, too.

Philanthroic &magination

The ideolo'y of the “&ood 4amaritan” pro$ides a new reli'ious lens to the

concept of the hilanthroic imagination. It 'i$es us a new way to understand this

world$iew. In 'eneral, thou'h, this concept 'rows out of a precedent for such a term,

)ased on a more 'eneral understandin' of a social ima'inary. Arominent Canadian

philosopher Charles Taylor defines that )roader term as9 “the ways people ima'ine their

social e6istence, how they fit to'ether with others, how thin's 'o on )etween them and

their fellows, the e6pectations that are normally met, and the deeper normati$e notions

and ima'es that underlie these e6pectations.” Taylor 'oes on to write that any effecti$e

social ima'inary “incorporates some sense of how we all fit to'ether in carryin' out the

common practice.”01 This conte6t pro$ides the framewor/ for the philanthropic

ima'ination and the “&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y pro$ides a more focused lens. We will continue usin' the definition of the philanthropic ima'ination as

30

Taylor, Charles, ,odern Social &maginaries ;@urham9 @u/e GA, 211>, 20:2.



Martin 21

“a mindset that incorporates )ac/ into our li$es the etymolo'ical root of

philanthropy( it is /eepin' agae at the forefront of e$erythin' we do,

professionally and personally. Kor Christians, a philanthropic ima'ination is

inherently a life of 'race )ecause it reLuires one to li$e a)o$e and )eyond the law

B we aren8t tryin' to 'et )y with the minimum. Kor all indi$iduals, the

philanthropic ima'ination is a reminder to thin/ of others always, to care for those

around us without prioritiDin' our own needs. It8s li$in' out the &reat

Commandment to lo$e our nei'h)or, to li$e a life of lo$e.”0

This definition as/s us not to consider the ideal as the only option, )ut to )e'in

thin/in' a)out how such an ideal mi'ht fit into our e$eryday li$es.

31

Martin, 5.



Martin 2

We can )e'in that thou'ht process with our understandin' of the “&ood 4amaritan”

ideolo'y. Agae, as a theory, ser$es as the foundational principle for )oth the ideolo'y

and the ima'ination.02 It is the en'ine that dri$es and moti$ates the philanthropic

ima'ination. Without lo$e, there is no ima'ination( there is nothin' to inspire our

thou'hts and actions on a wider scale. The actions of the &ood 4amaritan, and the pra6is

of the ideolo'y, ser$e as the )e'innin' steps in this ima'ination as we )e'in to

incorporate such a mindset into our daily li$es. The lon':term nature of those actions, the

sustaina)ility of the ideolo'y, is the process of 'rowin' in the philanthropic ima'ination

and turnin' it into our $ocation B a true callin' for a lifetime. If we thin/ of the

philanthropic ima'ination in the terms of the “&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y, then we can

)e'in to see it as less of an o$erwhelmin', impossi)le ideal standard, and more of a

process towards incorporatin' more lo$e:inspired lon':term action into our li$es B a

challen'in' 'oal, of course, )ut a worthy one.

Or%ani*ations o' o!e: +hetorical Criticisms o' Christian Charities

32

The first proect, “Creatin' a Ahilanthropic Ima'ination,” used the etymolo'ical

e$olution from agae to charity to ar'ue for a hilanthroic imagination in the academy.



Martin 22

tymolo'ically, we can certainly understand the e$olution of the term charity(

from a word meanin' universal love for humanity to a term si'nifyin' le'al entities that

ser$e social causes. We can also appreciate that this reli'ious term has e6panded o$er

time to include all /inds of or'aniDations, with all /inds of affiliations and missions. In

fact, the Christian understandin' of agae radically altered the &reco:<oman practice of

philanthropy, which had )een considered a way to interact only with the people of one8s

state. -ut, “lNi/e the &ood 4amaritan, a Christian was o)li'ed to pro$ide help to any

person in need, not ust a fellow citiDen. Ahilanthropy was e$ol$in' from munificence to

)eneficence. With the adoption of Christianity )y the <oman mpire, the church

esta)lished itself as the primary channel for assistance to the poor.”00 +s optimistic

mem)ers of the tradition, we mi'ht hope that our contemporary Christian or'aniDations

ha$e stayed true to those ori'inal teachin's of nei'h)or:lo$e as solidified in the &reat

Commandment. +fter all, if this ma6im is so central, surely or'aniDations that officially

associate themsel$es with the tradition would still incorporate such a powerful moti$ator

into their missions.

33

Matthew -ishop and Michael &reen, Philanthrocaitalism: 'o$ Giving Can Save the

World , 20.



Martin 20

To find out, three prominent contemporary Christian or'aniDations will )e

rhetorically analyDed, in the hopes of connectin' their stated missions to foundational

reli'ious teachin's. The specific we)pa'es of the sites for !a)itat for !umanity, !eifer

International, and the #oun' Men8s Christian +ssociation ;#MC+> that will ser$e as the

rhetorical artifacts in this section are those desi'nated for or'aniDational foundin' and

history, $ision and mission, and Christian ministry ;where a$aila)le>. +fter analyDin'

each or'aniDation8s we)site, the rhetorical strate'ies that most effecti$ely connect to our

“&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y are the usa'e of /ey terms and the employment of reli'ious

lan'ua'e. These strate'ies were selected )ecause they )ecome e$ident throu'h repetition,

which is a method of o)$iously esta)lishin' an ideolo'y in an artifact. It is this repetition

that leads the audience of the artifact to accept this ideolo'y as dominant ;whether they

do so consciously or not is irrele$ant>. 4o, in de$elopin' a nei'h)or:lo$e ideolo'y for

these we)pa'es, the /ey terms chosen to analyDe are9 love( human( all-everyone(

community-ies( neighbor .0 -eyond the use of those terms, reli'ious lan'ua'e will )e

identified as passa'es or phrases that either e6plicitly or implicitly reference -i)lical

teachin's or aspects of the ideolo'y as esta)lished in the pre$ious section. ach

or'aniDation employs these strate'ies to $aryin' de'rees of effecti$eness, ma/in' the

“&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y more or less dominant in each case.

'abitat for 'umanity

34

All and everyone were 'rouped to'ether as they )oth connote inclusi$eness and

e6pansi$eness. Community and communities were 'rouped to'ether as they are different

forms of the same word.



Martin 2

!a)itat for !umanity was founded in " and e6ists today as an international

or'aniDation that )uilds houses for people li$in' in po$erty. The inspiration for the

pro'ram was )orn out of the founders8 $isit to a Christian community farm a decade

earlier. While wor/in' there, the founders “de$eloped the concept of 7partnership

housin'.8 The concept centered on those in need of adeLuate shelter wor/in' side )y side

with $olunteers to )uild simple, decent houses.”05 The or'aniDation defines itself as “a

nonprofit, ecumenical Christian ministry founded on the con$iction that e$ery man,

woman and child should ha$e a decent, safe and afforda)le place to li$e.”0 Kurthermore,

!a)itat defines its mission as follows9 “!a)itat for !umanity8s $ision is a world where

e$eryone has a decent place to li$e. Eur mission is to put &od8s lo$e into action )y

)rin'in' people to'ether to )uild homes, communities and hope.”0" The or'aniDation

wor/s throu'h its ,11 affiliates nationwide ;as well as partnerin' with numerous

international or'aniDations>.0* !a)itat for !umanity8s application of the “&ood

4amaritan” ideolo'y was e6amined throu'h the rhetorical analysis of the we)pa'es

entitled “The history of !a)itat,” “!a)itat for !umanity9 a Christian ministry,” and

“Mission statement and principles.”

35

“The !istory of !a)itat,” 'abitat for 'umanity &nternational(

http9www.ha)itat.or'howhistoryte6t.asp6.

36

“Who we are.” 'abitat for 'umanity &nternational(

http9www.ha)itat.or'howwho.asp6.37

“+)out !a)itat for !umanity.” 'abitat for 'umanity &nternational(

http9www.ha)itat.or'how.38

“Who we are.”



Martin 25

Throu'hout the we)pa'es identified as relatin' to history and mission, !a)itat for

!umanity repeats almost all of the identified /ey words multiple times. E$er the course

of the cited we)pa'es, love appeared " times, human 0, all-everyone *, community-ies

5, and neighbor 1. -ecause these /ey words ha$e emotional, and often uni$ersal,

connotations, the repetition of these words on !a)itat8s we)pa'es is si'nificant. Most of

these words appeared in the or'aniDation8s “Christian Ministry” pa'e, which pro$ided a

more in:depth analysis of the or'aniDation8s mission and $alues.Krom ust its mission statement, it is clear that !a)itat for !umanity uses reli'ious

lan'ua'e. Throu'hout its e6planation of that mission, howe$er, this rhetorical strate'y

)ecomes e$en more pre$alent. Kor e6ample, listed first on the mission statement pa'e,

under the headin' “Mission principles,” is the su)headin' “@emonstrate the lo$e of Jesus

Christ.” In this section, the we) writers say “we must )e the 7hands and feet8 of that lo$e

and 'race in our world.”0 Throu'hout this pa'e, reli'ious lan'ua'e is $ery e6plicit.

Ahrases li/e puttin' “faith into action,” “lo$e mercy and wal/ hum)ly with &od,”

“manifestin' &od8s lo$e,” and “throu'h faith, the miniscule can )e multiplied to

accomplish the ma'nificent” are not out of place. This pa'e uses the most e6plicitly

Christian lan'ua'e, )ut it is not the only one to utiliDe this rhetorical strate'y.

39

“Mission 4tatement and Arinciples.” 'abitat for 'umanity &nternational(

http9www.ha)itat.or'howmissionOstatement.asp6.



Martin 2

The pa'e that descri)es the or'aniDation8s foundin' as a Christian or'aniDation

also uses lan'ua'e that is not only o)$iously Christian, )ut contri)utes to the “&ood

4amaritan” ideolo'y without Luestion. This pa'e includes statements such as9 “!a)itat8s

ministry is )ased on the con$iction that to follow the teachin's of Jesus Christ, we must

lo$e and care for one another”( “Eur lo$e must not )e words onlyP it must )e true lo$e,

which shows itself in action”( “!a)itat pro$ides an opportunity for people to put their

faith and lo$e into action”( and “When we act in response to human need, 'i$in' what we

ha$e without see/in' profit, we )elie$e &od ma'nifies the effects of our efforts.”1 It is

clear, e$en to a casual reader of !a)itat for !umanity8s we)site, that they consider

themsel$es a Christian or'aniDation B and more importantly to this analysis, that

affiliation is a $ery present characteristic of how they communicate their foundin' and

mission.

40

“!a)itat for !umanity9 + Christian ministry.” 'abitat for 'umanity &nternational(

http9www.ha)itat.or'howchristian.asp6.



Martin 2"

'eifer &nternational

!eifer International was founded in )y a farmer who was also a mem)er of

the Church of the -rethren. The or'aniDation8s 'i$in' model was dri$en )y “the 7teach a

man to fish8 philosophy.” !eifer pro$ides families in impo$erished areas with animals

in order to create a sustaina)le 'ift B the family can use the animal to 'enerate products

li/e e''s, mil/, cheese, and so on. !eifer International lists their mission as “to wor/

with communities to end hun'er and po$erty and to care for the arth.”2 The

or'aniDation wor/s in o$er 01 countries, descri)in' “The !eifer Way” as follows9 “We

)elie$e all people deser$e di'nity, opportunity, and a future free from hun'er. We )elie$e

we pro$ide the tools of transformation to )rin' a)out that opportunityQTo'ether, throu'h

e$ery small step forward, we8re transformin' the world for the )etter. ThatRs real

impact.”0 !eifer International8s application of the “&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y was

e6amined throu'h the rhetorical analysis of the we)pa'es entitled “+)out !eifer

International,” “The !eifer Way,” and “The foundation of transformation.”

41

“+)out !eifer International.” 'eifer &nternational( http9www.heifer.or'a)out:

heiferinde6.html.42

I)id.

43

“ndin' !un'er and Ao$erty.” 'eifer &nternational( http9www.heifer.or'endin':

hun'erinde6.html.



Martin 2*

+cross these specific we)pa'es, the repetition of /ey words is more focused than

!a)itat8s. "ove appears 1 times, human , all-everyone 2, community-ies, , and

neighbor . The application of this rhetorical strate'y shows a sort of focus that this

or'aniDation could )e assumed to ha$e in terms of our “&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y.

Clearly the repetition of all-everyone shows an emphasis on the action step, treatin'

e$eryone eLually, and includin' all in their wor/. Ef course, ust )ecause the word love

was ne$er used does not mean that the or'aniDation does not also operate on the

understandin' of agae, )ut rhetorically, it is worth notin' that these words are less

prominent. While what an or'aniDation writes a)out itself does not entirely eLuate to how

they understand their actions, it does cause us to wonder why their we) writers do not

include these /ey words that we ha$e determined to )e representati$e of an ideolo'y of

sustained, acti$e lo$e.



Martin 2

The same ar'ument can )e made for !eifer International8s employment of

reli'ious lan'ua'e on these pa'es. There are clear mentions of reli'ion in a few places

such as the ac/nowled'ement that “It doesn8t matter where you 'o ;or don8t 'o> to

worship, all of the world8s 'reat reli'ions call upon us to 'i$e. Contri)ute time, money,

e6pertise and 'oodwill whene$er you can,” which certainly reminds us of the &ood

4amaritan para)le, and our resultin' ideolo'y. This e6ample definitely fits with the idea

that 'i$in' to our nei'h)or out of lo$e is an important feature of participatin' in a

reli'ious tradition. !owe$er, the lan'ua'e used to ma/e that same ar'ument is much

more implicitly reli'ious.5

The same can )e said for the e6planation of the or'aniDation8s

'i$in' model, “Aassin' on the &ift.” Kamilies that recei$e resources from !eifer share

them with others in their community, such as 'i$in' their cow8s offsprin' to another

family. This feature of !eifer International8s mission certainly lines up with the

sustainability aspect of our “&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y, yet it is not articulated in an

o)$ious reli'ious way. +'ain, that difference is not necessarily pro)lematic B it ust

means that this or'aniDation is not applyin' this rhetorical strate'y in an o)$ious way.

!owe$er, we may as/ a'ain why an openly Christian or'aniDation would not use aspects

of the tradition to support what it is already doin'.

44

“The foundation of transformation.” 'eifer &nternational( http9www.heifer.or'endin':

hun'erthe:heifer:waymission:and:cornerstones.html.45

It is also worth notin' that of the “2 Cornerstones for Just and 4ustaina)le

@e$elopment” !eifer lists to e6plain its full mission, spirituality is the last item on the

list.



Martin 01

.oung ,en/s Christian Association



Martin 0

The #MC+ was first formed in %ondon in * and it was created in the

G.4. in *5. -oth ori'inal institutions were founded as a reli'ious “refu'e,” a “home

away from home” where people could pray and study the -i)le to'ether away from

cities8 )lea/ economic outloo/. The #MC+ in the G.4. now defines itself as a

“nonprofit or'aniDation whose mission is to put Christian principles into practice throu'h

pro'rams that )uild healthy spirit, mind, and )ody for all” and wor/s in 1,111

nei'h)orhoods focusin' on youth de$elopment, healthy li$in', and social responsi)ility."

It is interestin' to note that the or'aniDation now mar/ets itself solely as “The #” now,

which was a strate'ic decision to use the or'aniDation8s lon':standin' nic/name

officially.* The #MC+8s application of the “&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y was e6amined

throu'h the rhetorical analysis of the we)pa'es entitled “+)out Gs,” “!istory B

Koundin',” and “Eur Kocus.”

46

“!istory B Koundin'.” .,CA( http9www.ymca.nethistoryfoundin'.html.47

“+)out Gs.” .,CA( htt:--$$$0ymca0net-about1us0

48

4tephanie 4trom, “#.M.C.+. Is @ownsiDin' to a 4in'le %etter,” #e$ .or2 Times, July ,

211, http9www.nytimes.com2111"2us2#.html?OrS2.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/us/12Y.html?_r=2




Martin 02

The #8s use of identified /ey words is less prominent than the we)sites of the

other two or'aniDations chosen for this analysis. "ove and human )oth appear 1 times,

all-everyone , community-ies , and neighbor-hoods 5. !owe$er, their focus on

inclusi$eness and community are certainly important to reco'niDe. Their we)pa'es use

these /ey words in si'nificant ways, in section headin's li/e “Eur 4tren'th is in

Community,”51 and “Epportunities for +ll.”5 Thou'h these words were less common

than on the other sites, the #8s we)site contains much less te6t o$erall, puttin' it at a

statistical disad$anta'e for this analysis.

49

#eighborhoods was included as a /ey word on this site )ecause it certainly in$o/es the

same connotation as neighbor . This form of the word did not appear on the otheror'aniDations8 we)pa'es.

50

“+)out Gs.”51

“Eur Kocus.” .,CA( http9www.ymca.netour:focus0



Martin 00

The or'aniDation8s use of inclusi$e words was also its main connection to reli'ious

lan'ua'e that we mi'ht associate with the “&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y. En its “+)out Gs”

pa'e, there are sentences that certainly apply9 “We )elie$e that e$eryone should ha$e the

opportunity to learn, 'row, and thri$e”( “We mo)iliDe local communities to effect lastin',

meanin'ful chan'e.” These sentences a)solutely fulfill the ideolo'y8s inclusive action

and sustainability reLuirements. !owe$er, these characteristics of the or'aniDation8s wor/

are not descri)ed usin' any sort of reli'ious lan'ua'e or references. -esides a )rief

mention in the story of the or'aniDation8s foundin', the only mention of reli'ion is in the

pre$iously mentioned mission statement. While The #8s statement fits perfectly, it is

located at the $ery )ottom of the we)site, under copyri'ht information in fine print. We

mi'ht optimistically thin/, “+t least it8s somewhere” )ut when we remind oursel$es of

how much more e6plicit the reli'ious lan'ua'e was on the other we)sites, we mi'ht also

wonder why the Christian connection to an or'aniDation that literally has the reli'ion in

its name would ma/e it seem li/e that association is )ein' rhetorically hidden.

The Call o' o!e: Conclusions



Martin 0

In terms of the “&ood 4amaritan” ideolo'y, the three Christian or'aniDations that

were rhetorically analyDed were certainly effecti$e to different de'rees. E$erall, !a)itat

for !umanity8s we)site fit the ideolo'y )est throu'h the most e6pansi$e repetition of /ey

words and )y far the most e6plicit reli'ious lan'ua'es. The second:most effecti$e

we)site in terms of our ideolo'y is !eifer International B their we)pa'es did repeat most

of the /ey words, and there was plenty of lan'ua'e that fit the ideolo'y, )ut the

connection to reli'ious teachin's was implicit at )est. Kinally, the #MC+8s we)site did

not fit our ideolo'y rhetorically well at all. The we)pa'es analyDed did not repeat the /ey

words nearly as often, and there was )arely any e$idence of the or'aniDation8s affiliation

with Christianity.$en after closely e6aminin' these we)sites throu'h a rhetorical lens, we

reco'niDe that ust )ecause an or'aniDation does or does not use a particular strate'y or

fits an ideolo'y or not does not mean that their wor/ is to )e $alued any more or less.

There are infinite ways to succeed as an or'aniDation, ust as there are infinite ways to

lo$e our nei'h)or. It could certainly )e ar'ued that a$oidin' reli'ious lan'ua'e allows an

or'aniDation to reach a wider audience B people who do not identify with Christianity

may )e less willin' to wor/ with or see/ help from an or'aniDation that seems to re$ol$e

around the tradition.



Martin 05

!owe$er, we also reco'niDe now how critical the $alue of agae and the para)le

of the &ood 4amaritan are to Christianity. Whether reli'ious or not, we can appreciate the

$alue of actin' on those teachin's. We ha$e esta)lished an ideal, ima'inin' what a &ood

4amaritan mi'ht act li/e in our modern society on an indi$idual le$el. We ha$e applied

those Lualities to prominent charita)le or'aniDations that were all founded in the spirit of

the tradition. In doin' so, we ha$e compared the ideal to the real and found places where

they do and do not o$erlap.-y completin' this e6ercise, e$en if that is all we consider this wor/ to )e, we

ha$e learned a $alua)le lesson in the further de$elopment of the philanthropic

ima'ination. While it may e6ist as an ideal, it more importantly functions as a mindset, a

way of stri$in' to 'et e$er closer to that model. Will any indi$idual or or'aniDation )e

considered perfect in that way? Ef course not, )ut that is not the point. Instead, the

philanthropic ima'ination is an optimistic principle that as/s us to constantly push

oursel$es and each other, our churches and our or'aniDations, to 'row in agae.We /now that to stri$e towards an ancient ideal li/e agae, we ha$e to reima'ine

it. %i/e any other a)stract concept, it cannot )e confined to a time period, nor can it )e

e6actly e6ecuted B if either were possi)le, it would cease to )e a)stract. With that

understandin', we are ready to reincorporate those teachin's of lo$e )ac/ into our li$es,

our wor/, and our or'aniDations. The philanthropic ima'ination is the way we “reima'ine

lo$e in a contemporary conte6t.”52 It is an ideal, )ut it is also a reminder to always as/

oursel$es if we could )e doin' more to lo$e our nei'h)or B actin' on and sustainin' that

lo$e in real ways.

52

Martin, 21.



Martin 0

We are ready to apply this new perspecti$e )ecause we reco'niDe that doin' so

can and will )rin' real chan'e. 4miley and West write9“This new day must )e'in with a fresh ima'ination, a decision to disco$er some

hard answers to some hard Luestions. 3amely, what /ind of person do we really

want to )e? Cowardly and complacent or coura'eous and compassionate? What

/ind of country do we really want to )e? Cold:hearted and callous or carin' and

considerate? The choice is ours.”50

53

Ta$is 4miley and Cornel West, The Rich and the Rest of %s, 0.



Martin 0"

We can apply such a lofty ideal to our reality )ecause we /now it is an ideal worth

stri$in' for, and that can )e'in to )e actualiDed throu'h 'radual, tan'i)le chan'es.

Thou'h de$elopin' the philanthropic ima'ination is a su)stantial tas/, employin'

theories and applications of )oth reli'ion and rhetoric, the solution is simple, and not

surprisin'. The philanthropic ima'ination is a)out communication B indi$idually, as we

process ways to e$aluate our own li$es, and collecti$ely, as we wor/ in community to

effect real chan'e. In each case, then, the first step is lo$e.Wor,s Cited

“+)out !a)itat for !umanity.” 'abitat for 'umanity &nternational0

http9www.ha)itat.or'how.

“+)out !eifer International.” 'eifer &nternational0 http9www.heifer.or'a)out:heiferinde6.html.

“+)out Gs.” .,CA0 htt:--$$$0ymca0net-about1us0

-ishop, Matthew and Michael &reen. Philanthrocaitalism: 'o$ Giving Can Save the

World . 3ew #or/9 -looms)ury, 211. Arint.

@rummond, !enry. The Greatest Thing in the World . &rand <apids9 -a/er Au)lishin'

&roup, 21.

“ndin' !un'er and Ao$erty.” 'eifer &nternational0 http9www.heifer.or'endin':

hun'erinde6.html.

Koss, 4ona . “<hetorical Criticism9 6ploration and Aractice.” th ed. %on' &ro$e, I%9

Wa$eland Aress, Inc. 211.

“The foundation of transformation.” 'eifer &nternational0 http9www.heifer.or'endin':

hun'erthe:heifer:waymission:and:cornerstones.html.

“!a)itat for !umanity9 + Christian ministry.” 'abitat for 'umanity &nternational(

http9www.ha)itat.or'howchristian.asp6.

“!istory B Koundin'.” .,CA0 http9www.ymca.nethistoryfoundin'.html.

“The !istory of !a)itat.” 'abitat for 'umanity &nternational .http9www.ha)itat.or'howhistoryte6t.asp6.

%e$ine, +my:Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial

Rabbi. 3ew #or/9 !arperCollins, 21.



Martin 0*

%ewis, Cli$e 4taples. The +our "oves. 4an @ie'o9 !arcourt -race Jo$ano$ich,

Au)lishers, Inc., 1.

Martin, mily. ““Creatin' a Ahilanthropic Ima'ination”9 <eima'inin' %o$e,

Ahilanthrocapitalism, and Communication.” 4enior 4eminar, Transyl$aniaGni$ersity, 21.

Mcee$er, -rice 4. and 4arah %. Aettiohn. “The 3onprofit 4ector in -rief9 Au)licCharities, &i$in', and =olunteerin', 21.” Center on #onrofits and

Philanthroy. The Gr)an Institute, 21. A@K file.

“Mission 4tatement and Arinciples.” 'abitat for 'umanity &nternational0 http9www.ha)itat.or'howmissionOstatement.asp6.

Moffatt, James. "ove in the #e$ Testament . %ondon9 !odder and 4tou'hton, 2.

“3onprofits.” The %rban &nstitute, http9www.ur)an.or'nonprofitsinde6.cfm.

3y'ren, +nders. Agae and Eros0 3ew #or/9 !arper F <ow, .

“Eur Kocus.” .,CA( http9www.ymca.netour:focus0

4miley, Ta$is, and Cornel West. The Rich and the Rest of %s. 3ew #or/9 4miley-oo/s,

212.

4trom, 4tephanie. “#.M.C.+. Is @ownsiDin' to a 4in'le %etter,” #e$ .or2 Times, July

, 211. http9www.nytimes.com2111"2us2#.html?OrS2.

Taylor, Charles. ,odern Social &maginaries. @urham9 @u/e GA, 211.

“Who we are.” 'abitat for 'umanity &nternational0http9www.ha)itat.or'howwho.asp6.




emily martin working draft

Documents