Jesus Christ: If you don't work you shall not eat

Post Reply New Topic

I think you're just overcomplicating it somewhat.

In the early Christian community, the ideal was for Christians to sell all their possessions and share hold property in common according to what everyone needed. When I consider what needs are, I have in mind the basics for survival. Sharing group needs in common promotes self-sufficiency within the group. If you sold all your possessions with the exception of, say, the tools of your trade, you retained the means to build wealth that you could share with those who lacked the same means. If you're a carpenter, for example, you could build a corn crib for someone who raises cattle; if you raise cattle, you could trade meat or dairy for the carpenter's services.

The primitive Christians understood that there were special needs within the community for those who physically COULDN'T or otherwise were unsuited for working and building wealth (the elderly, widows, the infirm, etc.). BTW, building wealth was not an end to itself, but rather to sustain individuals and further the work of the church in spreading the gospel. This system worked for a short while, but it soon became obvious that there were cheaters among the early Christians--two notable examples of which were struck dead on the spot.

What's pretty clear is how easily this kind of system can be exploited. If you are physically capable of working and contributing to the work of the community, being a bum unnecessarily dependent on the welfare of the Christian community makes you a parasite and thus establishes unhealthy patterns that could harm the solidarity of the group as a whole.

You could say, "well, there are plenty of resources, so how do the actions of one person or a tiny sub-group affect the welfare of the group as a whole?" Bear in mind that when we're talking about theology and fundamentals of Christianity, we're less often talking about the physical effects or consequences and more about the spiritual effects. No temporal harm is going to come to Christians who show charity, even to those who don't deserve it. We value forgiveness just like Jesus, right? The problem is that not only does the Christian community have to endure a physical drain on resources, no matter how slight, but the Christian community as a whole participates in enabling sinful behavior. Tolerating parasitic relationships is as good as tacit approval, hence the need for spiritual guidance in dealing with it.

I wish we as Christians saw more discipline in our congregations. I say keep the doors open to genuine seekers. But I do not believe that a church congregation is the place for anyone, professed Christian or not, who persists in openly engaging in willful sinful behavior. That is the general tone set by Paul in other writings, and I think the same applies here. If someone doesn't NEED the charity and is perfectly capable of providing for himself and his family, don't provide him with food or money.

That's enabling. Get him a job instead.

The "no work/no food" rule is a general principle that is aimed at hitting Christians where it hurts when it comes to spiritual discipline. Exclude wayward Christians from those things that spiritually nurture them and upon which they depend the most and the expectation is that they will change in order to better reflect Christ-like behavior.

And, too, as much of a student of the Law as Paul was, I suspect his overall view on discipline was in the spirit of doing whatever it took to get ideal results. I mean, anyone who has a basic grasp of psychology knows that the same methods don't work on all people because all people are different. Tell someone who everyone knows is capable of working that he's going to starve, he'll eventually get off his butt and start earning his daily bread. My recent spiritual experience taught me that much...the work I actually get to do in providing for my household is quite limited, and "don't work/don't eat" factored slightly into how I responded to my calling.

I believe that God provides for our needs and that He has long provided for mine...so much so that being a lazy bum and living with too many bad habits took a pretty ugly toll on me physically, at least just from appearances. When I trusted God to sustain me, I dropped 50+ lb. in 40 days and, figuratively speaking, didn't even blink. Right now I'm mostly living off tiny portions of surplus food that I prepared for my family that they didn't use and I'm STILL losing about a pound a week. So I'm consuming only slightly less than my actual dietary needs, feeling no ill effects, and it somewhat reflects the amount of work I actually do (which pays for house utilities at least). Not that I'm the brightest, shining example of obedience, but I do actually TRY to practice what I preach!

So the "don't work/don't eat" rule partly has to do with strengthening the Christian community, building solidarity, and holding the individual accountable, but ties in somewhat with what I call natural order. The Christians gave to each other according to need, right? Well, you really only need food if you are an active, productive individual. If you aren't working, you don't NEED to eat, at least not very much. Even the elderly and infirm only need enough nutrition to sustain them throughout the day or to get them through illness, and eating full meals during these times can sometimes even do more harm than good. Recovery from illness means that one can go back to work and in turn provide for others who may be experiencing illness.

I enjoy using the 7th day as a simple sabbath observance rather than the 1st day, and the only things I do as an observance is fasting and minimizing work. It ties in also with the "don't work/don't eat" idea and serves as a regular practice of the Christian discipline of fasting--and Saturday/sabbath day is just a convenient day of the week to practice it (technically what I'm doing right now is work, but it's also an aid in my time of spiritual reflection, which is half the point). However, I've also given thought to the fact that my fasting also saves between $5 and $10 on food. I've struggled over this because I don't give food to the poor and homeless, nor have I really made any effort to help other Christians. So that's the next step for me--breaking through "not working/not eating" and giving to those who "can't work/can't eat" otherwise.

The Religious Right teaches if you get fired from a job and can't find a new job that you should starve to death.

Jesus was right wing.

No he wasn't.

What was he then?

Lots of his ideals are right wing (such as the one this thread is about).

If Jesus was not a Communist how did those Christians get their food without working for it in the first place?

The so called Right Wing folks also fund and sponsor soup kitchens and bread lines for those down on their luck. This is starvation?

ruveyn

Charity

And....???????

Yes it is "charity". Jews don't call it that. That call it Tzadakah which is hebrew for justice. As in doing the right thing.

ruveyn

But this charity is not an entitlement.

Thank you for clarifying your logic.

And, in my opinion, only someone who's really crazy or really sad (I don't think depressed is the right word, and I can't think of a word that is better than sad) would willingly chose to starve to death.

Random remark – I like the way AngelRho puts thoughts into words. Mature thinking on top of this page.

Jesus demands that Christians feed the poor.

He wasn't a hippie (this is revisionist position, just like the right wing idea), though I believe the whole movement was primarily to subvert roman rule, and the status quo with the elitist local rulers. I would view them much more as propagandist, and generally pushing their own interests, just like you or me would want to do, if you were subject of the local kings an roman rulers.

It wasn't really about religion, that was a means to an ends. Take the new testament, it basically subtly subverting some ridiculous and irrational ideas in the Hebrew bible (and directly contradicts much of the teachings), and also the culture which was not great for people in Jesus's circle. On the other hand they know how far they could push it, they knew their limitations with regards to taboos.

You could say it was quite successful at that aim, look at the history in the first century and the decline of the roman empire. Unfortunately it didn't die with the Jewish Christians and the Paulist and the Roman and Eastern churches put their own spin on it.

Try to apply modern politics to these times is frankly laughable.

regards to christianity v communism.

If we can say one thing about christianity, its that it doesnt advocate capitalism, AFAIK. If anything all that laissez faire objectivist s**t is closer to satanism, which is one reason I've never understood why christianity has a tendency to attract right wing d-bags.