Exploring “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat”

Disclaimer: This blog is a bit longer than those typically posted, approximately 10-15 minutes. Feel free to skim parts that feel a bit overwhelming. However, please realize that the policies implemented based on these ideas greatly impact many of our neighbors and are informed by our Biblical interpretations.

There is a fairly well-known Scripture from 2 Thessalonians 3:10, where Paul writes – we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” This seems to lay out clear guidance with seeming universal application. If someone is unwilling to work, then there is no obligation for others to provide them with food. Even more than that, some might say we are disobeying God’s will by giving people food when they refuse to work. Many apply this to their giving but also government policies (see this article). In the linked article, a GOP congressman is wrestling with how to apply this scripture. He asks the question – ‘Every one of us wants to help the poor and needy. What is a reasonable and responsible work requirement for the SNAP program?’ This is a legitimate question. However, there are many assumptions underlying the question and the quest to apply 2 Thessalonians 3:10. We will examine but a few intriguing issues as we discuss this important belief held by many Christians about this verse.

First, let’s start where biblically committed Christians should generally start, with the context of this passage. It is found in one of Paul’s two letters to the Christians living in Thessalonica. There is a problem within the Christian community related to idleness. This problem is highlighted multiple times in Paul’s letters besides our main passage. 1 Thessalonians 5:14 – “warn those who are idle and disruptive” and elsewhere in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 – “keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive.” The cause of idleness might have been related to a false belief about Jesus’ return (2 Thes. 2) or simply taking advantage of the generosity of those within the Christian community. We don’t know for sure because Paul doesn’t give a direct cause. However, the lazy Christians were clearly not living up to the ideal that Paul exhorts them to. The ideal he advocated was to earn what they eat (2 Thes. 3:12), not be dependent on anybody (1 Thes. 4:12), or even better, care, love, and witness to others while not burdening anyone (1 Thes. 2:7-12).

The idea of generosity born of self-sufficiency fits well with the typical Protestant work ethic. However, there are several assumptions and implicit ideas we need to parse out. First, the workers in question are obviously capable of working, healthy, and able-bodied. At that time, there were limited jobs outside of manual labor so physical health can be assumed. Despite their relatively good health, they were not working. It would make little sense for Paul to tell other Christians not to associate with their brothers and sisters simply because they were incapable of working or could not find a job. Can you imagine if Paul wrote ‘Those Christians who are healthy but not working and can’t find a job. Don’t help them out! Don’t give them food! If they aren’t working, they don’t deserve anything!’ This is a ridiculous statement. Paul clearly does not have active job seekers and strivers in mind. He was addressing people who have an opportunity immediately or with an effort to get meaningful employment soon but are not taking advantage of it. This implies that he is aware of their opportunities and obstacles and that they can be achieved with the application of more personal effort. Cutting off the food from those idle in the Christian community likely would have induced significant hardship and motivated them to change their ways, which Paul had knowledge they could do. In a brief aside, I think it is important to note that their society was much less individualistic than ours. There were patron/client relationships and various other social bonds that aided people to surmount the challenges of life since government assistance was much more limited than it is today. So, with that background, let’s pivot to today.

Today, there is a widespread belief, particularly in more conservative circles, that there are a lot of Americans who are able-bodied but lazy and living off welfare. These people seem to fit into the same category of those who shouldn’t eat as Paul was writing about. Some claim these people are sucking the lifeblood out of our country. Take the song Rich Men North of Richmond, which was a big hit around this time last year, as an example. Here are some lyrics from the song.

Lord, we got folks in the street, ain’t got nothin’ to eat

And the obese milkin’ welfare

Well, God, if you’re five-foot-three and you’re three-hundred pounds

Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of Fudge Rounds

The song mixes faith elements with contrasting poor hardworking folks who have nothing to eat with those who live off the government and get fat doing it. A distinct picture of an overweight person (likely a woman at 5’3”) living off the hard-earned tax money of others emerges negatively from the lyrics. This fictional person cannot control her desires (buying Fudge rounds) and therefore ends up fat, beyond her implied laziness. This person is compared to the everyday folks like the artist singing, who work hard but don’t get enough pay and have a life full of troubles because of “rich men north of Richmond.” I want to try and sidestep the political angle of this (as in Republican vs Democrat) and focus on the role Christians should be striving for in and from government. Christians need to consider how accurate this song’s portrayal of how our government works is and how Christians might want to engage in this important social issue of government assistance to others.

Let’s start with how prevalent fraud and abuse is within the welfare system. Within the SNAP system, government estimates are that one percent of the benefits dispersed have been fraudulently obtained. This is a very low percentage, especially when compared to COVID programs like PPP and COVID-19 EIDL funds sent out at least 17 percent to fraudulent actors. 1 percent is a reasonable number to expect from a well-functioning government program. With Social Security Disability, estimates again range less than 1 percent. Anecdotally, I can attest to the difficulty of getting social security disability because I have a friend whose wife is disabled but has been unable to get benefits for two years because of the high standards. Is there fraud? Yes. Do people lie? Yes. But fraud itself does not appear to be very widespread. So with fraud not being a culprit for government waste in this area, let’s move on to who is using SNAP and what are the work requirements.

SNAP imposes a work requirement for recipients between the ages of 16-59, with some exceptions (site). The exceptions include physical and mental limitations, rehab programs, studying more than half-time, and having a child under six. These requirements are different for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs). ABAWDs between 18-52 can only receive SNAP benefits for three months in a three-year period unless they meet additional work requirements, with some exceptions. With these categories and requirements in mind, let’s look at the breakdown of ages and limitations using the benefits and employment percentages. The following charts were drawn from research completed by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a center-right policy think tank (site). Figure 1 presents the percentages of SNAP recipients.

It is clear that ABAWDs (18-49) and Nondisabled Adults (50-64) represent around 20% of SNAP recipients. The older group is relatively equal in percentage despite being half the age range, 15 years versus 30 years wide. Within these groups how many people are employed? Figure 2 below shows a good representation.

It shows only around 24-28% of these two groups are employed. Thus around 74% of the 20% of SNAP recipients represented by these categories or about 15% of SNAP total recipients, roughly 6.5 million people, appear capable of working but are not employed. That is a lot of people! The existence of this group seems to raise the question of ‘why aren’t they working and why is our government feeding them when they are idle?’ Or this total of “able” people not working could encourage people to think, ‘We should tighten work requirements for these people so they have to work! There are too many people getting government handouts. These are the people eating fudge rounds in the song!” And it is true that SNAP doesn’t have nutrition requirements for any food purchases (link).

But, let’s slow down a minute and consider, why else these groups of people might not be working. There are various other factors besides having a disability or dependent that can impact someone’s ability to find gainful employment. The same AEI study states how “Among the age 50-64 SNAP group, for example, not only did half have a disability, but nearly 70 percent had a diet-related disease diagnosis, such as diabetes or heart disease, 40 percent were obese, and another four in ten reported feeling worthless or hopeless” (link). Feeling worthless can certainly be a detriment to finding good employment. Fortunately, for those who want to work, SNAP provides some employment and training opportunities. But these training opportunities can price you out of SNAP benefits, even partway through the programs (link). Also, think about the three months of benefits for an ABAWD. What new job can you get in three months? Generally, a low-wage job that you already qualify for. Be forced to take a job like this that may often be just temporary can lock people into a cycle of temporary jobs accessed through temporary job agencies (link – Chapter 6). Beyond that, it turns out that those using SNAP benefits can be highly concentrated in certain areas of the country. There are pockets of high SNAP recipient percentages in metro areas, small towns, and rural areas (see here). These concentrations likely represent more of a systematic failure and larger economic conditions than individual laziness. Additionally, people may not be able to access work requirement systems accurately, thus resulting in lost benefits (link). Or they could have been previously incarcerated and therefore have additional barriers to getting a job.

If this seems like a complex issue to you, good! No, really! That is a significant point of this blog. Paul wrote about a small, tight-knit Christian community and not a modern secular democratic nation. Therefore, things are much more complicated than they sound in the Bible. We wouldn’t want a work requirement to lock us into a low-wage job within 3 months, possibly cause us to lose benefits, and ignore other challenges that may be impacting us if we were in their position. We would want nuance and deeper understanding that brings about better results but requires a greater investment. For example, providing more government funding for training that matches job shortages like trades and nursing. To solve these issues and to be faithful Christians we need more than simple caricatures of people and problems. We need more than anger and snap judgments. We need analysis, wisdom, collaboration, and the Holy Spirit.

It is right and good, as Paul wrote, for all people to produce enough that they can share with others and not simply rely on their generosity. However, there is a lot of judgment involved in deciding on someone’s capability to work. Also, what happens to someone who doesn’t eat? They die. What happens to someone who can’t access a healthy diet? They die much sooner than they would have otherwise. Either way, the stakes on this are quite high. From Bible times to today, much has changed. You can’t generally walk to work like you could in Thessalonica. You can’t as often just use your hands to make a living wage. So, I suggest we shouldn’t blindly apply Biblical principles that have dramatic implications on the lives of people we don’t really understand. Can people get transportation to work? Are there compatible jobs available? What are the real barriers to their economic advancement? We should slow down and consider these things.

You may think, why does this matter? Well, as it turns out the Farm Bill that authorizes SNAP benefits is up for renewal in September of 2024, that is next month (link). So, policymakers will be arguing over work requirements and how to structure these benefits for the next five years. It is a consequential time for our poor neighbors and for how our government will spend money going forward. It is helpful to be better informed about these things, about how our faith applies to these issues, and to perhaps be better equipped for advocacy around these issues. Hopefully this blog encouraged you to take a small step in that direction.