Now we command you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from every brother or sister living irresponsibly and not according to the tradition that they received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not irresponsible when we were with you, 8 and we did not eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day so that we might not burden any of you. 9 This was not because we do not have that right but in order to give you an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: anyone unwilling to work should not eat. 11 For we hear that some of you are living irresponsibly, mere busybodies, not doing any work. 12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. 13 Brothers and sisters, do not be weary in doing what is right.
– 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13 (NRSVUE)
My brother is three years younger than I am, and like many siblings, our childhoods were often focused on what was “fair.” My parents instituted a rule whenever my brother and I were splitting anything — a brownie, a piece of pizza, our Halloween candy. The rule was, “I split, you choose.” One of us would divide the prize, whatever it may be, and the other got to choose which half to receive.
As one might expect, it made for some very delicate and precise division, but generally left both of us satisfied that if we hadn’t received the larger share, we had at least not been cheated out of what was rightfully ours.
I thought about this childhood belief in “fairness” as I studied and reflected on this text from 2 Thessalonians. At first glance, the idea that “anyone unwilling to work should not eat” seems to be a plain statement about what is fair, or not. The Thessalonian church perhaps, is struggling to figure out what fairness looks like in the fledgling community.
As I write this blog, the U.S. government has been shut down for more than a month, and there is a lot of talk in the public square about what is “fair.” How long should federal workers go without pay? Which jobs are “essential” enough to warrant salaries during the shutdown? Which programs should receive emergency funding in this interim time?
Most recently, the debate has focused on funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, better known as food stamps. SNAP is the country’s largest anti-hunger program, and it helps 40 million people get food for their families each month (for more information, see the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).
Twenty-five years ago, when the program was still known as food stamps, I worked for the anti-hunger organization Bread for the World, which advocates for laws to help fight hunger in the United States and around the world. One of the major complaints we heard back then from members of Congress and from voters across the country was that people should have to work in order to receive benefits like food stamps.
As worries about funding for SNAP have again risen to the surface in recent days, I’ve seen multiple memes and charts circulating social media answering FAQs about SNAP benefits. Over and over, the top concern on these lists was about whether or not people who receive SNAP are actually working or might be cheating the system to get something for free.
Rather than presuming that the vast majority of people who need food assistance are experiencing actual hardship in their situations of employment or income, the prevailing public belief continues to be that the problem is not that people in dire straits might go hungry, but that someone somewhere might cheat the system and get food without demonstrating their willingness to work for it.
A quick internet search turns up numerous uses of 2 Thessalonians 3:10, sometimes usually quoted by members of Congress, as justification for denying government benefits to those “unwilling to work.” Despite all evidence to the contrary (two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children or elderly, and the vast majority of those able to work do so), the idea persists that unneedy, idle people out there are bent on getting free food through dishonest means.
This one, lone verse from a short New Testament epistle whose authorship is uncertain has had outsized impact on Christian perspectives on hunger: that we should be more worried about getting cheated than we are about neighbors going without food.
While information about the church in Thessalonica is relatively sparse, hunger does not seem to be the issue at hand. For that matter, being “cheated” is not a critical issue, either. Rather, there are concerns in the community about the imminent and apocalyptic return of Jesus. In light of the anxiety and unsettledness that go along with not knowing how much longer they will have to wait (and what they should do while waiting), some people in the community may have given up their daily routines (like work) and become obsessed with anticipation of “the end.” Others may have been acting as “busybodies,” spouting conspiracy theories or undermining relationships and trust by spreading rumors, rather than building up the community in ways that “do right.”
The Greek word rendered “irresponsible” in the NRSVUE has in other versions been translated as “idleness.” Scholars note that a more accurate translation denotes a sense of disorder or lack of responsibility — something along the lines of making trouble rather than merely being lazy or inactive (the NRSVUE translation rightly points in that direction). The epistle writer’s concern is about appropriate and constructive participation in the community, not whether or not someone is slacking off or getting free food.
The admonition to “do work quietly” and not to be weary in “doing what is right” point to behavior that is responsible and fruitful for the body of Christ and the betterment of all. In a time of anxious waiting for what might happen, this is no easy task, but the command provides faithful grounding in times of insecurity and instability: take care of each other, each to the best of your ability, so that everyone has what they need and everyone is part of the whole.
That said, we are still left with the troubling use of 2 Thessalonians 3 as a means by which to deny people in need access to food, lest the system be “cheated.” Clearly, this is a misreading of the calling to community that is the crux of this text. However, for the sake of argument, let’s examine the exhortation that “anyone who is unwilling to work should not eat” in light of the capitalist system in which we live.
In 2009, self-help author and entrepreneur Tim Ferriss published a book called The 4-Hour Work Week: Escape the 9-5, Live Anywhere and Join the New Rich. It was a New York Times bestseller. The premise of the book was that particular kinds of work optimization and productivity — including farming out tasks to low-paid assistants — would allow people to make a lot of money without putting in much effort or time.
While there have been many critiques of the book, especially regarding the truth of its claims, I haven’t been able to find any concerns voiced publicly that “anyone who is unwilling to work should not eat” when it comes to those who are seeking to be rich.
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service has a designation for income earned in which you “do not materially participate” (i.e. engaging in “operation of the activity on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis”). Such income is called “passive income,” and includes a number of ways people receive ongoing, passive returns, such as through rental properties or royalties. Another quick online search reveals endless guidance on how to create passive income in order to work fewer hours, retire early, and enjoy the benefits of wealth while others do the work for you and you live a life of leisure (see this article from CNBC, for instance).
Meanwhile, in our economic system it is easy to earn more money by doing nothing if we already have money. The more money we have, the more we can invest and the more interest and dividends we can earn on the money we’ve invested — no work required. (This is a different tax category; long-term investments are “portfolio income” rather than “passive income.” Both categories are distinguished from “earned” income, which is when you are paid for work you are currently doing.)
Nowhere have I found members of Congress or other political or religious leaders suggesting that workless income of the passive or portfolio variety means the earners should not eat.
And so, we return to the question of fairness in a community. Fairness is always related to justice. In a household like the one in which I grew up, cutting a brownie into two halves using the “I split, you chose” method was both just and fair and just, because my brother and I had otherwise equal access to food, shelter, clothing, safety, and love. But context matters. If I am splitting a brownie with a child who hasn’t eaten all day and it is simply my dessert after a full lunch, “I split, you choose” may be fair in the abstract, but it is not just.
Thus, the deeper question from 2 Thessalonians 3 remains: what does it mean to live in a Christian community together where all are cared for, and all are called to participate fully in “doing right”?
