Context, context, context,,,

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 

It began back in May with Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN):

,,, saying that the government's role is the role that Jesus had back in the Bible,,, let me say this, two things. The first is the Bible also says that the poor will always be with us. And it also says if you don't work, you don't eat

But more than that, the role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other. But not for Washington to steal money from those in the country and give it to others in the country,,,

It continues to this day, as the recent vote exemplifies. But I'm not interested in the politics of SNAP at the moment. What I am curious about is where Fincher went to school to study the Bible as he needs to request a refund. Like others before him, he is ill-informed in regards to the teachings of the Bible as a whole and fails in understanding the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 3:10, the passage he is alluding to.

One of the first thoughts that came into mind, why is he (Fincher) even mentioning a biblical precept to begin with? The US is not a theocratic government (at least not yet) and our "laws" are not biblically based. Biblical principles have no place in a discussion such as this and by using the Bible to accuse those of us (and yes I am a recipient*) on SNAP as being lazy is not only politically stupid but spiritually bankrupt. The problem with quoting scripture, Thessalonians in this case, whether Republican or Democrat (or Independent) is that Paul's admonition is to the church not to the government. So on a basic level, this verse doesn't even apply.

Context, context, and more context. Why is context, such a difficult idea for these bloviating "Reich" wing men of faith to understand? I will ignore the irony that this over-simplified and commonly twisted passage is the same that Lenin used when he corrupted the Russian system.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products. (Chapter 5, Section 3, “The First Phase of Communist Society”)

It will take us down a rabbit hole so large we may never return, I am more interested in the biblical context and how to combat Fincher's abuse of the Bible. But I will say this in regards to Lenin, “He who does not work shall not eat” is a necessary principle under socialism, it is the first step towards a communist society. BUT this sentiment was directed at the bourgeoisie, you know those men with the letters after their names like CEO and CFO, not at the so-called lazy or unproductive workers that Fincher envisions. As for the children, the aged, and disabled, these groups would have a right to society's products because they were not at fault for their condition. In regards to the aged, Russia had a rudimentary form of Social Security; the elderly had worked during their youth, and so could not be denied life’s basic necessities.

Enough of the history lesson, let's take a look at his passage Fincher is so eager to say "proves" his point,,,

The second letter to the Thessalonicans has been attributed to Paul and written circa 52 CE; it was the second Christian community created and organized by Paul. The letter is a response to some of the Thessalonicans who grew concerned over whether those who had died would share in the Second Coming of Christ or the Second Advent. It is therefore written for a specific time, a specific place, and specific situation in Thessalonica.

Like any well written letter, Paul has a greeting or introduction:

After the introduction (v. 1, 2) the apostle begins this epistle with an account of his high esteem for these Thessalonians (v. 3, 4). He then comforts them under their afflictions and persecutions (v. 5–10) and tells them what his prayers were to God for them (v. 11, 12).

The body or the heart of the letter, which in this case is eschatological correction:

The apostle is very careful to hinder the spreading of an error into which some among them had fallen concerning the coming of Christ, as being very near (v. 1-3). Then he proceeds to confute the error he cautioned them against, by telling them of two great events that were antecedent to the coming of Christ-a general apostasy, and the revelation of antichrist, concerning whom the apostle tells them many remarkable things, about his name, his character, his rise, his fall, his reign, and the sin and ruin of his subjects (v. 4–12). He then comforts them against the terror of this apostasy, and exhorts them to stedfastness (v. 13–15). And concludes with a prayer for them (v. 16, 17).

And salutation.

In the close of the foregoing chapter, the apostle had prayed earnestly for the Thessalonians, and now he desires their prayers, encouraging them to trust in God, to which he subjoins another petition for them (v. 1-5). He then proceeds to give them commands and directions for correcting some things he was informed were amiss among them (v. 6–15) and concludes with benedictions and prayers (v. 16–18).

The specific verse we are interested in is part of the salutation, which Daniel B. Wallace, PhD. of Dallas Theological Seminary explains quite nicely:

Paul concludes the body of the letter with exhortations related to evangelism and eschatology (3:1-15). First, he requests that they pray for the spread of the gospel through the agency of Paul (3:1-5). Then, he rebukes the idle (3:6-15), expanding on a rebuke he initiated in 1 Thess 5:14a. The expansion of the warning is due to Timothy’s report that the problem was increasing (3:11). The reason for the increased idleness seems to be an improper attitude toward eschatology: if the rapture will happen soon, why work? Paul takes this to its logical conclusion: if there is no need to work, then there is no need to eat (3:10)! Finally, Paul concludes the exhortation with a note on church discipline: ostracize the disobedient so that they will be ashamed and repent (3:14-15).

Notice the focus, “an improper attitude toward eschatology.” Nothing about those who are at the bottom of the social heap; the disabled, unemployed and under-employed, the poor, children or the aged. DarkSyde from the Daily KOS explains it well:

,,,It's a practical solution offered by Paul to resolve a problem in a Christian community when its charitable mission is being taken advantage of by a few assholes; keep the gossiping busybodies working and they can't plant rumors and fuel discord.

These people causing the problem weren't poor children or scam artists in a booming economy, they had work available. Based on the time and place Paul spoke, they presumably just blew some of it off because they liked playing Machiavellian games. Back in those days, with no social media or Internet, no phones, not even mail, if you wanted to be an irritating social butterfly, or the modern day version of an Internet troll, you had to spend hours trudging around from one farm or market to another to get the juiciest stuff and pass it on, to serve up the subtle backhand compliments and quietly stab others in the back, leaving little time for your own house and work.

There’s that damn concept of context again, at least DarkSyde gets it right.

What one has to bare in mind throughout all this, especially when reading the Pauline letters, 1st century Christians believed that they were living in the End Times. They expected Christ to return in their lifetime. This worldview caused some Christians to believe that they no longer had to work but instead could sit around waiting for Armageddon. Some were satisfied with their own salvation and did not concern themselves with spreading the Gospel. This is what concerned Paul and other church leaders, the lack of missionary zeal as well as growing sloth of some of their followers. Edgar J Goodspeed offers this:

The eagerness and zeal with which the Thessalonians had welcomed the gospel (I Thess. 1:5-9) had actually run away with some of them. These persons were so convinced that a new age had dawned that they had given up work and were absorbed in waiting for the return of the Messiah on the clouds of heaven. This threw a heavy burden upon their more practical brothers in the church, who felt obliged to provide for their material wants. Paul had been warned of the danger of this development before he wrote I Thessalonians and had touched upon it in I Thess. 4:11, 12, hoping to prevent it from becoming acute. But a few months later it developed into more serious proportions.

It had its origin in the idea which had sprung up in Thessalonica, perhaps from something Paul had said or was reported to have said, that the Day of the Lord, foretold by the prophets, had now come. In a sense this was true. For if the great messianic Day was to be that on which the Christ came to the earth, one might well think it had come, since he had come, in the person of Jesus.

The group at Thessalonica thought of it in other terms, however. They believed the messianic age had begun, and that the messianic reorganization was now so imminent that they might better give themselves to religious reflection and contemplation than to mundane matters like earning their daily bread. This threw a heavy strain upon their more practical fellow Christians, who had to support them as well as themselves. This was not all. Not all of those who had given up earning their living devoted themselves to spiritual exercises. There was just as much human nature in the first century as there is now, and leisure as well as labor has its temptations. So the Thessalonian drones became a cause of scandal in the community, not only because they let their Christian brothers support them but because they were getting to be loafers and busybodies.

So yes my dear readers context does matter. I am not sitting around anticipating the Second Coming of Jesus to occur at anytime. Hell I’m an atheist, I don’t even believe in a divine Jesus figure, so there is no Second Coming in my mind. What I am waiting for is the government to get “big money” out of government and restore jobs and fair wages to America.

I’m waiting for the hypocrisy to stop, and yes this is the article that got me going:

Calling it “a victory for commonsense” yesterday, while patting himself on the back for voting to defund Obamacare, Speaker of the House John Boehner said:

“At a time when the economy is barely eking along, wages aren’t increasing, new jobs aren’t available, and what are we doing? We’re putting more costs and more inconvenience on the American people.”

That was the Republican Speaker’s rationale for defunding Obamacare. Apparently, Speaker Boehner is unaware his House just gutted food stamps one day earlier, and demanded those who need money to eat will have to find jobs in an economy that “is barely eking along,” where “wages aren’t increasing,” and where “new jobs aren’t available.”

The economy looks one way when he’s discussing food stamps — but entirely different when he’s discussing Obamacare.

But that hypocrisy pales in comparison to this.

Back in July, when Congress stripped the food stamps bill from the farm subsidies bill, fourteen Congressmen who voted for that attack on the poor are themselves farmers. Yes, they are recipients of farm subsidies.

And yesterday, thirteen of those fourteen voted to gut the food stamps bill.

Sorry to say, rich congressmen who spit snake venom while using the Bible as a sword against the poor and who themselves get ludicrous government handouts for doing nothing are the epitome of hypocrisy. When I say do nothing, I am referring to the fact that Congress will work a grand total of 126 days this year for which they will earn approximately $172,000.

I have posted about SNAP before and the delusions many like Fincher are under, but I will defer to Justin Doolittle, who sums up the realities quite well:

Most people who receive food stamps cannot be dismissed as losers who are "unwilling to work." Nearly half (47%) of all food stamp recipients are children. Another 8% are 60 years of age or older. The "working poor" - people who live in a household with income from work - represent another 41%. Between children, the elderly, the working poor, and people who want a job but cannot find one - someone should tell Fincher that there are still more than 3 unemployed job seekers for every 1 opening - that leaves very few people who can be accurately described as being "unwilling" to work. It's also worth noting that the average monthly SNAP benefit is a whopping $287. It takes a deeply disturbed person to crusade against providing this class of people with food to eat, when the economy is this battered, and when the broad economic benefits of the program have been so well established (at least in the reality-based community).

The poor and down trodden will always be with us and it may behoove Fincher et al, if they are true believers, to heed what Christ had to say in Matthew 25:31-46:

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

But alas I fear those like Fincher will ignore such sentiment as it does not line up with their ideology. People like this congressman do not want those they consider lesser than themselves to survive. They actively pursue selfishness and do not care about those impacts that don't affect them directly. Come on people wake up! These are the same people that believe that when illness or disasters strike, the solution is: Don't get sick or live where disasters happen; If you do experience one of the two, die quickly.

The fact that I am not the only one taking the time to write about Fincher’s comments does give me some hope. As John Chrysostom, an early Church Father so eloquently stated: “Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs.”

__________

*For the sake of disclosure, I do receive $129/month (out of a $200 maximum) from SNAP. I work 2 jobs, one in which I get paid $8.75/ hour, we are capped at 28-32 hours/week.; usually I work 26 hours for $175/week take home which pays my rent, health insurance (when I get it back), food stuff after SNAP is gone, and pre-paid cell phone. My second job I work 6-9 hours/week and make $7.25. The $35/week from this job is for non-food stuff (soda, cleaning supplies and clothes) and the occasional treat. All told I make about $840/month of which $500 is for rent. Insurance will add another $50 in expense through the PA MAUD program for workers with disabilities.

Without SNAP I would not be able to eat properly (even that is debatable) as I am diabetic and can't rely on cheap boxed or processed foods. I try and eat a high protein diet so rice and pasta are verboten, though I do use sparingly (1 maybe 2 times/week). Same goes for bread products although I do have to use for lunches. Even with SNAP my meals are very simple, the cheapest cuts of meats (no beef), seafood is used sparingly, lots of salads and veggies. All my meals are home cooked and very rare will you find "junk" food in my apartment. OK, I will admit that soda is the bane of my existence, I have yet to find a suitable replacement that I can stomach, though I am experimenting and it is paid with cash not my SNAP.

Since my SNAP has already been cut $18 this (September) month due to wages I earn, any more will make things difficult. They are again slated for decrease come Oct 1st(?) when the 2009 stimulus runs out as well; another $11 will go bye-bye. Getting a better job is not an option as there are no jobs where I live. I mean that in the literal sense and not just as hyperbole, a very rural area with few jobs to begin with; our unemployment rate is still at 13% and will most likely remain such for a long time to come.

So you see I am not one of those lazy moochers who is unwilling to work. Like many on SNAP I am and underpaid/underemployed worker with a disability trying to make a go of it in this crazy mixed up world of ours.