Hi VG, thanks for sharing more of your thoughts. Because this issue relates heavily to morality and materialism, I'm trying to express my disagreement with your conclusions without coming across as though you are immoral. I really do appreciate the efforts you've made to promote volunteerism and to help others. I'm hoping I can make a few criticisms on some of your conclusions without you feeling like I don't appreciate the good you've done.
The Bible is chock-full of people working for pay. Judges, kings, importers and exporters, fishermen, landowners (farmers), etc.
I'm talking about principles and motivations. While there are plenty of examples of people working for pay, referencing them is not the same as supporting them. We could say this forum contains plenty of examples of people behaving badly toward one another, but that does not mean bad behavior is promoted here.
But the rewards of doing such volunteer work are intrinsic - not to mention beneficial to the community.
Reality is, though, that when we have paying jobs, we can afford to house ourselves, clothe and feed ourselves, etc.
It looks like you're making a comparison between the rewards which come from volunteering (i.e. intrinsic rewards) and the rewards which come from paid employment (i.e. cash for buying needful things). I think this is a serious misunderstanding of the reason why money exists. Demanding payment is not the same as receiving a reward. I realize that "demand" probably sounds harsh, but that is, in fact, what paid employment is. If people do not pay us, then we will not perform the work.
It is also possible that I've misunderstood your comment about rewards, and that you were only referring to volunteerism as the reward, but that also presents a problem because you go from the intrinsic rewards of helping the community to the "reality" of needing to demand payment. I'm sure you would not consciously agree with this assessment but I hope you will see how it comes across to me, based on what you've actually said. By first commenting on the intrinsic rewards of volunteering and then getting to the
reality of needing to do the opposite of volunteering, the volunteering part comes across as shallow by comparison.
Working for love vs working for pay; they are polar opposites in principle, just as the Bride is the complete opposite of a prostitute.
There is one passage that states if someone does not provide for their family, they are worse than an unbeliever.
Remember the context of Paul's letters is that he's writing to communal churches. These are not the same kind of churches we have today where all the congregation live their own, separate lives, unaccountable to one another or the church and only gather together once (or maybe twice) per week.
I have lived in community and I've seen parents with children who take advantage of the community atmosphere by foisting their kids off onto other members of the community for babysitting, feeding, clothing, schooling, counseling etc. Because of the "community feel" it's easy to assume that others in the community are happy to do these things, and to some degree they are but the assumption isn't good. Despite the community support, the parents still need to be parents. They still need to provide all these things for their own kids instead of developing an unhealthy reliance on everyone else to do all the work.
Much like, "if you don't work, you don't eat" is a rule to guard against laziness in the community, so too is "let every parent provide for their own kids" a rule against laziness in the community.
No one speaks against such work for pay;
MT 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
"Mammon" is a term used to describe money and the things money can buy. Jesus goes on to tell us to consider the birds and flowers because they don't work for money and yet God still feeds and clothes them. He concludes by telling us that our new full-time job is to work for love and that God will provide for us the things we need.
He said that the woman who put in 2 coins gave more than those who gave much. He did not suggest that it's better to give only 2 coins; he suggests that we should give as we are able.
"Giving as she was able" is one way to put it, but it still leaves a fair bit of wiggle room for the individual to argue what does "able" really mean. There are plenty of wealthy people out there who give just as the rich people in this story gave and probably believe they are "giving as they are able", too. I have a friend who's parents are quite wealthy, but they talk about helping the poor as though it's something they could only do if they win the lottery someday. At the moment they're just
not able to do as much as their good intentions lead them to believe they'd like to do.
What made the woman at the well so different is that she gave all she had. That's exactly what the disciples did, too. It's what the early church in Acts, did. It's what Jesus taught. See Luke 14:33 , Luke 12:33 , Luke 5:28 , Luke 5:11 , Matthew 13:46 for examples. There are lots of examples like this.
Ananias was killed by God himself for lying about how much he gave. Ana and Spahy reasoned among themselves that they were only able to give a portion of their wealth to the church probably because they would still need something to start over again in case their new church life didn't work out. I'm sure it sounded very reasonable to them at the time (see Acts 5:1-11).