Comments  8

• Anne 13 May, 01:32 PM

  Nice that your middle class parents could volunteer in their leisure time, Carmen, as did mine for many years. But many who participate in Americorps are young folks taking time from their lives (usually full time) - some of them come from an economically disadvantaged background. The 'do' and they learn about service and about working on a team and about community. We give financial support to our long term mission volunteers. Why is this so different? Or do you think we should stop supporting missionaries because they are called to be servants? Do you think that THEY are not volunteers?

• Art Woodling 13 May, 01:44 PM

  An AmeriCorps volunteer serves full time for between 10 and 12 months, and receives a benefit of $4,725 that can be applied towards their education expenses. That comes out to be about $0.50 per hour, which is hardly an incentive, so I'm sure they aren't being robbed of any "joyful experiential expertise". There is also at least a modicum of personal risk involved, we’re not talking coaching Little League here.
  
  Of course we have an all volunteer Armed Service too. Just think of all the tax money we could save if we don't pay them. Ahh yes, the joy of serving self-sacrificially…
  

• Tom Gray 13 May, 04:20 PM

  I would still agree with Carmen. Missionaries are not volunteers, they are answering a call, paid or not. While they "volunteer" to work in difficult circumstances, and are usually underpaid, they're still paid.
  The word "volunteer" with the army is unrelated to pay. It simply means that the recruits choose to serve, rather than being drafted.
  Words have meaning. It's tragic to debase the currency of "volunteer" by associating it with pay.

• Sue 13 May, 04:45 PM

  Anne and Art make very good points. In the 1970's I was sometimes a "full-time volunteer." I could do that because my husband was a military officer making a comfortable living and we had no children. By and large, volunteers were wives of professional men.
  Life and communities have changed. Perhaps the Salvation Army can still find volunteers to ring bells in some small towns, but in more populous areas they too have realized the need to pay people to staff their kettles.
  I think the "volunteer" army is a greater misuse of the word. Are enlistees really volunteers when they are forced by unemployment, lack of education and lack of opportunity?

• Carmen Fowler 13 May, 05:46 PM

  Great feedback! Thank you for interacting in this conversation. Am I allowed to agree with all of you or does that dampen the spirit of blogging?
  To Anne's point, I agree that "volunteering" is a privilege, that's part of what makes it sacrificial. I also agree that AmeriCorps is a wonderful, wonderful thing. (And Americorps participants will now be compensated at a slightly higher stipend for use in paying for their education. Which is also GREAT.)
  My point was NOT about AmeriCorps, but with the co-opting of the word "volunteer" in association with something that is albeit horribly under-compensated, none-the-less paid. And so no, I do not consider missionaries "volunteers." I consider them called by God for a particular work that happens to look a lot like what others do as volunteers in societies where there is a middle class that can, out of privilege, volunteer their time and talent sacrificially.
  As to the discussion about the Armed Forces - great addition to the conversation. Thanks for raising it. You're right in saying that there is yet another "definition" or "use" of the term "volunteer." And although the Tennessee "Volunteers" were really that, the voluntary nature of service in the Armed Forces is, as Tom points out, all about NOT being drafted.
  Anyone want to pull another thread?

• Matt 14 May, 06:52 AM

  I joined the Navy as a volunteer. I was unemployed, lacked education and there was no opportunity in my community. I was not forced into anything. I took advantage of an opportunity.
  
  The Navy gave me an interesting job with upward mobility and paid me, paid for my education to the Masters Degree Level and provided opportunity for travel and a meaningful career.
  
  I now enjoy comfortable retirement.
  It was never easy and the only safety was what we all provided by taking responsibility for ensuring it.
  
  There is no reward without risk. There is no happiness without commitment. There is no opportunity
  without self discipline and toil.
  There is no peace without courage and no hope without God's grace.
  
  I've had plenty of raw deals along the way, but I had God's grace in my life, so I have never been a victim.
  
  Timid people think the armed forces are a horrible fate. Absent courage and character they can be, but so can medicine, or the clergy, or factory work, or teaching, or retail, or living on welfare.
  
  Keep the faith. In the long run, all will be well.
  

• David L. Bierschwale 14 May, 11:40 AM

  Good conversation. Thanks, Carmen, for starting it! I have no problem with your concern over what may, perhaps, become a trend of re-defining volunteerism. I totally agree that the wages of volunteerism come through the blessing that one feels in helping share the compassion of Christ.
  
  I only wish to give a glimpse into the work of an Americorps worker. Our daughter has served in 2 Americorps projects. One of them was in the Rocky Mountains region with Habitat for Humanity. The other was in the southwest, working with a trail crew. Of course, the former was more explicitly Christian, while the latter was not so. Yet, the Lord blessed her in so many ways through these experiences.
  The wages (and having $1,000 of college student loans "forgiven" with each completed assignment) were a very small part of the experiences.
  
  The second experience was quite demanding--11 days camping out on the trails with a crew of 10 persons. They would then go back into the metro area for a 3 day break. This cycle continued for the 2 month program. Their work involved a lot of moving rocks! Also, hand-grading trails, pulling many weeds, etc... Yet, she had a sense of pride in knowing that those folks who visit the parks will have a much more pleasant experience out in God's great creation!
  
  Though it wasn't exactly like Americorps, I served on the staff or the Brazos Valley Development Council for one summer after college graduation. The BVDC was based in Bryan-College Station Texas. This organization was charged, in that region, with coordinating the Cooperative Employment Training Act (CETA). Of course, in 1980, this was a product of the Jimmy Carter administration. Young people in the poverty-stricken areas of the Brazos Valley would work various jobs for their local schools that summer. I would visit with them weekly (4 different schools), and spend several hours in training them in various areas to help them be successful in some vocation--filling out applications, strategies in interviews, etc...
  
  Though I wasn't in total agreement with the structure of the program, I did feel that it was a good government program overall. I say that as one who believes that our nation should strive to maintain the "bare minimum" of government programs.
  
  

• Jeff Magrane 19 May, 08:59 PM

  There are opportunities for volunteerism without expansion of government programs.In other words, how do you legislate more volunteerism?
  
  If someone responds to an Americorps program with a stipend of any amount, has the stipend influenced them against another volunteer opportunity?
  
  Is taxpayer money being used to promote government's agenda under the guise of volunteerism? Isn't the essence of volunteerism a private decision? Shouldn't it come from thankfulness of our blessings only and not from government promotion?