Jobs for no pay

ValleyGal said:

"As for needing money to pay the bills, God can provide for his people so long as they follow his teachings."
2 Th 3:10 says: For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Click to expand...

Hi VG. Thanks for posting this reference. I think it fits perfectly with what I was described. The context is that Paul was writing to a Christian community; a community where people shared all things in common, as was referenced from the churches in Acts. "Christian community" is a situation which is very easy to abuse, much like the "hippy utopia" where you can walk into a house, plop down on the sofa and wonder when someone in this household of communal love will bring you a sandwich.

Paul's rule was a practical defense against such abuse. You can come into the community and hang around soaking up the good vibes as long as you like. But, when it's time for food, you'll have to get it somewhere else. It doesn't take long to sort out who's serious about working for God and who just wants to be lazy.

It is cultural conditioning that causes us to think references to "work" in such examples automatically means "work for money". As goodbook suggested in post #23, families regularly work for one another without expectation of payment. Try to convince a mother and/or father that raising a kid isn't work, despite not being paid for it. You'll get some pretty convincing arguments to the contrary!

And, as has been suggested before, volunteers who work for no pay often work quite hard. I don't think I've seen anyone suggest here that a volunteer's work isn't real work just because they do it for free, but that is what is so often implied when it comes to "real life". I often hear people say, regarding volunteer work, "It's great to give your time for free when you can but eventually you have to get back to the real world, which takes money to survive, which means working to get that money". It's a somewhat condescending way to appreciate the good intentions of working for love while suggesting that it is worldly values which really keeps everything going; money is "real life".

But I don't see either Paul or Jesus teaching such a thing. I see them teaching the opposite. The work Paul referred to was the work of the church, just as Jesus' comments about the worker being worthy of his "hire" referred to God providing for his servants when they're in the field laboring for him. Real life comes from God; not money.

Goodbook said:

Todays church seems nothing like it was in the book of acts. There will always be leaders who get paid and subordinates who dont. I found that, people in its employ, need a DEGREE just like the wordly system to be in leadership positions. And degrees at bible colleges these days are not free.

Click to expand...

I used to think having some kind of formal education was necessary to get into professional church leadership. I tried talking to a few different pastors about it. At the time I was a stoner with very little ambition, though I wanted to do something more with my life. I had no interest in jobs or higher education. The pastors told me all about the many years of schooling I need to become a preacher/evangelist/whatever; basically anything aside from a normal church attender willing to pay my tithes. I got frustrated and gave up. It wasn't until a few years later that I learned Jesus hadn't say anything about all that.

He said that we should just start doing what he told us to do and that would make us employees, automatically. I need need degrees and papers etc. Those things can be helpful as proof of study, but they don't say anything about sincerity, integrity, or loyalty. What's most important is a willingness to hear and a desire to obey.

The single greatest complication is that once people understand the level of commitment Jesus actually promoted, they start to lose interest. It's fairly easy to spot problems in the church world. I talk to lots of people who can see problems. When I ask them what they can do to address the problems, they say it wouldn't make any difference unless everyone decided to change all at once. In one day I talked to three different people who made the same basic argument; they can see the problem but no one else can and one person can't change the world, so they'd just continue as they were.

Until we decide to be the example all we will be able to do is complain.

Goodbook said:

I remember having the rostered job to count tithes in one church, they took home at least $500 a week from offerings. I never really knew what they did with that money. I think maybe they just paid the mortgage, it didnt seem like it was used for anything. It got put in the bank, it was never said that they used it for such and such or a mission etc. It was a completely mystery what happened to it.

Click to expand...

It should be shocking, and I'm glad to hear you express concern about it, that you don't know what's happening with the finances in your own church. I suspect very few of the congregation know. It's actually quite a common thing in many churches and that is because very few church members actually care about where the money goes. They have some vague notion that it going "to the work of God" whether it's to renovate the church, pay the mortgage, fund overseas trips, buy new hymnals, pay salaries or whatever. The reason most church people tolerate this is because they are comfortable with the concept of paying someone else to do the work for them.

So long as they keep paying into the church they can rest easy that they are doing their bit to support the kingdom of Heaven. It becomes just another bill to be factored into the household budget.

Or, it could just be that you've not taken much interest before in what happens with the money. But, if that was the case, then the church probably should have challenged you for being so complacent. Why should you keep attending if you're not interested in what they're doing?

Endtime Survivors said:

Hi VG. Thanks for posting this reference. I think it fits perfectly with what I was described. The context is that Paul was writing to a Christian community; a community where people shared all things in common, as was referenced from the churches in Acts. "Christian community" is a situation which is very easy to abuse, much like the "hippy utopia" where you can walk into a house, plop down on the sofa and wonder when someone in this household of communal love will bring you a sandwich.

Paul's rule was a practical defense against such abuse. You can come into the community and hang around soaking up the good vibes as long as you like. But, when it's time for food, you'll have to get it somewhere else. It doesn't take long to sort out who's serious about working for God and who just wants to be lazy.

It is cultural conditioning that causes us to think references to "work" in such examples automatically means "work for money". As goodbook suggested in post #23, families regularly work for one another without expectation of payment. Try to convince a mother and/or father that raising a kid isn't work, despite not being paid for it. You'll get some pretty convincing arguments to the contrary!

And, as has been suggested before, volunteers who work for no pay often work quite hard. I don't think I've seen anyone suggest here that a volunteer's work isn't real work just because they do it for free, but that is what is so often implied when it comes to "real life". I often hear people say, regarding volunteer work, "It's great to give your time for free when you can but eventually you have to get back to the real world, which takes money to survive, which means working to get that money". It's a somewhat condescending way to appreciate the good intentions of working for love while suggesting that it is worldly values which really keeps everything going; money is "real life".

But I don't see either Paul or Jesus teaching such a thing. I see them teaching the opposite. The work Paul referred to was the work of the church, just as Jesus' comments about the worker being worthy of his "hire" referred to God providing for his servants when they're in the field laboring for him. Real life comes from God; not money.

Click to expand...

I agree that volunteering is real work for no pay. In fact, I have spent much time volunteering in many, many capacities over the years, including doing the same things that I get paid for at work. 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. There is one passage that states if someone does not provide for their family, they are worse than an unbeliever. Paying jobs is one way to provide for your family. There has to be a balance of each. And I was a parent - a single parent for 18 years. While I was a single parent, I also worked very hard at my job as well as volunteered at the church as well as at the local gym. So I worked very hard - about half of it was for play and the other half was social investment and rewarded intrinsically.

The Bible is chock-full of people working for pay. Judges, kings, importers and exporters, fishermen, landowners (farmers), etc. No one speaks against such work for pay; in fact, it is very much encouraged in such stories as the wife in Proverbs 31. Jesus speaks about the value we place on it, though. 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. And if someone works hard and makes good money, then they are more fully equipped to give more for their tithes and offerings. If hard work was not something Jesus supported, he would have preached about it and no one would be expected to tithe at all because none of us would have anything to give.

God expects us to function in whatever culture and economy we live in. But he expects us not to put the love of money ahead of our love for God. Working for pay is not sin; it is encouraged. Working for no pay is also expected.

So, GB, you seem to have given this issue a fair bit of thought. I'm wondering how you see it relating to you, personally.

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.

ValleyGal said:

The Bible is chock-full of people working for pay. Judges, kings, importers and exporters, fishermen, landowners (farmers), etc.

Click to expand...

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.

ValleyGal said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ValleyGal said:

There is one passage that states if someone does not provide for their family, they are worse than an unbeliever.

Click to expand...

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.

ValleyGal said:

No one speaks against such work for pay;

Click to expand...

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.

ValleyGal said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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).

My forward slash button on my computer is not working, so I can't quote and snip. You have a lot in your post and this conversation could go a lot of ways. But I am unclear of your actual stance. Do you agree that it is necessary to work for pay in this society. If not, whose money do you suppose ought to support you in eating, housing, clothing, and caring for yourself. Also, do you agree that volunteering for no pay is a kind, good, moral, community-developing act of social equity that should be encouraged for your own sake as well as the sake of the community. If not, why not.

Some of the cliches I've used from the Bible are correct. Even not in context, how can they not be correct. If you don't work, you don't eat - do you think it's up to others to feed you so you can laze around all day. The principle works, even out of context of its biblical passage. The reason is that if you expect others to feed you, then that means they are the ones who have to go to work to make food happen - unless everyone is their own gardener-farmer, which also means they still have to work for their own food. Either way, the principle stands on its own.

Serving God does not have to mean you do not work for pay. I became a social worker because we advocate for social change to meet the needs of marginalized people - those with addictions, the under-employed, people with disabilities, elderly people, people in dysfunctional families, etc. I did it because God calls us to visit people in prison, to feed the hungry and clothe the poor. Why does he call "us" to do these things - it's because we have the resources and means to do these things for those who do not have the means - iow, enough paid work to survive in a money-based society. Jesus said to render unto Caesar.... and so how do you do that, unless you have some to give to Caesar. I love my job, and do it because I am motivated by social justice and my love for the Lord, wanting to be obedient to all those commands.

The whole point of saying that you can't serve both God and money (let's call it what it is in English, since we speak English) is that you can't allow your pursuit of money surpass your pursuit of God. That would be violating the first command, to have no other gods ahead of the Lord God. So I work because I love God, and I happen to get paid to do what God has called me to do. The Bible also says that we need to serve our employer as though it were Jesus himself we were serving. Hard work has been a biblical principle since Adam was booted from the Garden - hard work is a consequence of original sin. God has established governmental authorities and we are subject to those authorities, and this includes the use of currency. Even in early biblical times, there was currency in the form of trade (I'll trade you two goats for one sheep).

Just because someone works for pay does not mean they are working for money RATHER than God. As you stated, it is the motivation of the pursuit that counts. After all, God judges our heart, not on the outward appearance (such as remuneration and the size of your retirement package). Some people, like me, work for God in both paid employment as well as in philanthropic ways.

Both paid employment and volunteering are necessary to well-being, to survival and to being part of a community. If you do not do these things, then you become a social drain - using others to serve you rather than you serving others. Jesus said it was better to give than to receive. How can you give if you have nothing to give. But we ALL have something to give in some form or other. We are called to serve rather than be served - Jesus demonstrated this to us. So when someone is asked (people are never demanded to volunteer) to bring something to potluck, to help with cleaning up or to drive someone somewhere, etc, they are being asked to serve. Those who place themselves into the service of others - paid or not - will be greatest.... as long as God is the God we serve (however you treat the "least of these" is how you treat Jesus himself).

An afterthought - what is the alternative to being busy with paid and unpaid work.... it is being idle. And the Bible has plenty or warnings about what idleness will lead to.

Goodbook said:

Well, to me personally is something I have to take up with God who knows how much time I have on earth and what to spend it on. I do believe you cant serve both God and mammon.
i have been in the other camp and God led me out of it. (Egypt, or babylon, as it were).

Sorting what is of God and what isnt comes down to discernment. I do like the church I am in now but the problem is I fell asleep in the sermon on sunday. ?!

It is tiring if ones efforts go unrewarded or are completely dismissed. This goes for a both paid and unpaid work. I think for me, a job worth doing is worth doing well, but obviously, I cannot do every job. I would be exhausted if I did that.

Click to expand...

What kind of jobs would you prefer to do?