Better Than Drudge

recent posts

about

Bible: Those Who Do Not Work, Should Not Eat

By Selwyn Duke

It’s so often the case today that the New Testament of the Bible is placed in the service of liberalism.  The leftists who do this often have never read it, but that doesn’t stop them from didactically quoting such  lines as "Do not judge lest you be judged"; of course, they never balance it with the command to "Judge with righteous judgment."  Then, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone . . ."  is never followed by "The road to Heaven is narrow, and few shall pass; the road to Hell is wide, and easily traveled."  But this is to be expected in an age of designer religion.

What prompts me to write this is some Scripture that was read at church on Sunday.  I had heard it before, and it speaks very specifically about responsibility.  In the Second Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians it states:

In the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother
who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor
did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we
worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a
burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat.’

We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.

There isn’t too much here left to interpretation.  And I think that this is a good passage to quote if anyone ever tells you that "Christians were the first communists" or that the New Testament prescribes liberalism. 

Lest I be misunderstood, I don’t say that this gives us license to ignore the plight of those in true material need.  If I did that based on this one excerpt, I would be guilty of taking a leaf out of the leftists’ book; I would be cherry-picking Scripture for the purposes of promoting a very ungodly agenda.

The balanced view is that we have been enjoined to help the desperate, but not the deadbeats.  To facilitate irresponsibility is to harm your fellow man, for by lavishing him with undeserved largess you corrupt his soul.  And, as Jesus said, do not fear that which destroys the body; fear that which destroys the soul.

There also is no command anywhere in the Bible to administer aid through government.  In point of fact, to provide charity through Uncle Sam makes it not charity, as it then involves the appropriation of resources at the end of a gun.  You are then simply, to use what has become a cliché, giving people the shirt off someone else’s back.

What should govern this is the principle of "subsidiarity."  In a nutshell, it states that the smallest possible unit of society that can perform a given task should be the one to do so.  Thus, if individuals or families cannot meet the legitimate needs of the poor, you then look to churches, community groups and charitable organizations.  You don’t reflexively empower the nanny state. 

Besides, it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to get involved in the charity business.  As father of the Constitution James Madison said,

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson concurred, saying,

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Of course, though, since I have now departed from sanity, I shall end this piece.  Expecting leftists to abide by the Constitution is like expecting Bill Clinton to abide by the sixth commandment.

Posted in , , ,

2 responses to “Bible: Those Who Do Not Work, Should Not Eat”

  1. Ray Hicks Avatar
    Ray Hicks

    If charity is left to the “smallest unit of society,” then all charity would be left to passing motorists giving a handout to people begging with signs on street corners. What do we have a government for anyway? What responsibility does it have to its citizens?
    World War Two came around and the same guys, who were standing in soup lines, found that they were standing in lines to be drafted. Why, if the government can demand you put your life on the line, does it cross the line when it comes to having the responsibility to provide for you; if you’re unable to do that for yourself? (Something doesn’t seem right here.)
    If government can demand that its individual citizens protect it, regardless of just how that individual feels about participating in that protection…Vietnam comes to mind here; then it has the responsibility to protect its individual citizens. And I’m not talking about the shirt off someone else’s back. No one expects another to starve in their place. I don’t even think that individuals have a responsibility for the welfare of other individuals. But if government assumes the power to make demands on its citizens, then it has the responsibility to insure the welfare of its citizenry. Generally, to do for its people what they can’t do for themselves.
    And not just building and maintaining roads. Protecting the people from those who would exercise advantage; insuring that education and health care are available to all; helping those who fall by the wayside until they can help themselves. If government can’t do these things, then it shouldn’t exist. We can claw it out among ourselves without interference from government.
    And when your draft notice comes in the mail, you could feel free to just throw it away.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Walt Holton Avatar
    Walt Holton

    In respectful retort to Mr. Hicks. I believe it is our duty to serve our country and not our government. There is a difference between the two. Our Country is the enabler of our liberty via the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and so on. It is our duty to serve our country as it has provided us freedom. Our government however is merely a facility of administration. Although our country may ask us to serve that does not mandate the government to serve every whim of the people living in the country.
    Is welfare the ends of poverty or the means to perpetuate it? With the federally managed welfare system accountability for the end user is nil, and millions are squandered on bureaucratic administration. Poverty can inspire self improvement, but it does not guarantee it. Often those on welfare may have a desire to improve yet see no urgency to do so if they have no direct accountability or personal support; they put off their future. If one simply cashes a check written from the Treasury of the Federal government the recipient has no personal connection, no guilt, no accountability. By no means am I advocating throwing people out on the streets to starve! What I am saying is in order to really help people we must go past a meal. We must make it more personal. I would prefer to see all government assistance go away and see what the churches and charities could do with the same bucks. Just straight off the top tax and labor credits for helping the under privileged. I see private fundamental charities like this excel and people reborn into society without huge tax incentive. The difference between the private and public hand outs is the personal connection and accountability. The private teach the hungry to fish, to plant and harvest. The public only teaches you how to eat. I know I am way too idealistic. I know if this sort of thing were to happen too many, would loose too much power.
    The basis of freedom is that no man should be forced to serve another. A basis of morality is that a man will of his free will serve those in need.
    At the very least the collection and the dispersing of entitlements should be done solely at the state or county level. We must return control of all social issues to the states. Each State has different ideals and ideas. If the peoples Republic of California wants to go socialistic more power to them. What a great place to experiment.
    Walt

    Like

    Reply

Let us know what you think, dear reader. We value your input!