Year C. twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost November 18, 2001
Heavenly Father thank you for teaching us that Christian charity is doing for others what they cannot do for themselves or cannot do at the time. It is not enabling others to be dependent or lazy or idle or be busybodies because they have too much time on their hands. Amen.
Title: “Christians are not patsies to be sponged off of,” or “What is my responsibility as a Christian towards people who refuse to help themselves and ask me to do for them what they could and should do for themselves?”
2 THESSALONIANS 3:6-13
Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, 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. This was not because we do not have that right, but in order to give you an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat. For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. Brothers and sisters, do not be weary in doing what is right.
(Here ends the 2nd, reading.)
In the previous chapter, chapter two, Paul warned his readers about misconceptions regarding the Parousia, this is, the Second Coming. Then he changed focus and addressed God and Christ in prayer, fluctuating between addressing God and addressing his readers, encouraging them to be true. In verse six, Paul gives a summary statement about what he will say in the remainder of the letter verses seven to fifteen, most of it in our present text. He says that brothers and sisters, who are idle, lazy, disorderly, who do not live according to the traditions Paul passed on to them are to be shunned, ostracized from the community, denied donations of food until and unless they change their behavior, work quietly and productively for the good of the community and their own support, and get with the program.
In verse seven and eight, imitate us; if Paul and his colleagues have a right to be supported by the community because of their “work,” for the community and spread of the gospel in accordance with the teaching of Christ himself “The laborer deserves his keep and his wages.” Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7, but they do not exercise that right, working for their food and keep instead, then the Thessalonians can work for their food. After all, they do not fit into the category of “special ministers of the gospel,” as do Paul and his colleagues. Elsewhere Paul’s formula is “imitate me as I imitate Christ.” Here, it is: “Imitate me as I work for my bread.” Paul did not eat food in any community without working for it. Those who live in the community should not expect their brothers and sisters to support them unless they cannot support themselves. Paul is speaking only about those who refuse to work, not those who cannot find work or are unable to work. We can only presume that Paul would exercise his right to be supported by the community if that would enhance and promote the spread of the gospel, but, so far, such has been unnecessary. Paul was all too well aware of the dangers of being beholden to someone. Such dependency could compromise the purity of his preaching. He would have to consider the impact his words would have on his physical comfort and security. He was not prepared to risk that, so he worked as well as preached. If he can work under those conditions, other Christians can work as well. The idea that the Parousia, Second Coming, was coming soon and they, the idlers, were waiting for it and saw no need to work, given its imminence, was merely a pious ruse for their laziness.
In verse nine, give you an example to imitate; Paul was well aware of the power of “good example.” He not only preached it, he lived it. People who work long and hard can show those less inclined that they, the idlers, have drawn the lines and limits of human energy too narrowly.
In verse ten, when we were with you, we gave you this command; this laziness on the part of some was not a new problem. Paul encountered it before while actually in Thessalonica. He laid down the basic principle then and it still applies; no workey no foodey; no loaf to the loafer. Being charitable, sharing what we have with others, helping others in need, does not include helping those who can and should help themselves. That is not charity but an deviation of charity.
Unwilling to work; Paul makes a distinction between those who are able-bodied and those who cannot work because of ill-health, disability or advanced age. Feeding the able-bodied free of charge “enables,” them to continue in idleness and “frees,” them to mind everyone else’s business.
In verse eleven, in a disorderly way; the Greek word translated as “disorderly” here and in verse six as well as the verbal form in verse seven, may refer to disorderly behavior, it’s a military term for “standing in line at attention,” or “marching in order”. In the context of work it has the sense of failure to perform one’s duties or obligations and means “indolence, laziness, idleness.”
Not keeping busy but minding the business of others; this does not merely mean observing people as if watching fish in a fishbowl, but has the more active sense of “meddling” or “interfering,” especially in other people’s business that one has no right to meddle in.
In verse twelve, work quietly and to earn their own food; most commentators claim that these “idlers,” are using the imminence of the Parousia, Second Coming, as an excuse for not working. That may be so, but Paul does not connect his admonition to work with the Parousia. Whatever the connection, Paul sees the issue of “working quietly,” “earning one’s own keep,” and “minding one’s own business” as issues separate from the chronological imminence of the Parousia. Apparently, the temptation to abuse Christian charity by claiming “need, “ albeit a manufactured, trumped-up need rather than a real one, was common enough in the community, or any community, for Paul to condemn it on its own merits, or lack of merit.
Sermon
Jesus taught that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. By that he did not mean we had to like our neighbor, but love him or her. Liking love is one thing; Christian love is another. Jesus means for us to always act in the best interest of our neighbor, whether we like him or her or not, just as we are to always act in our own best interests. This kind of love mirrors God’s love. Jesus put the same teaching in another key when he taught that we are to serve others rather than be served. This is just another form or format for loving. As the early Christians gained experience in loving as Christ taught she quickly learned that one’s neighbor might use the Christian mandate to love as a means to manipulate Christians into doing their personal bidding rather than truly serving their needs. In other words, meeting their “wants,” rather than their needs.
Such folks seems to take the position that if a person is Christian and they show up at the Christian’s doorstep asking for food, then the Christian is duty-bound to give it to them, no questions asked. Indeed, if the Christian refuses, the beggar questions how authentic the Christian’s faith really is. This is not only true with food beggars and money beggars, it is also true in thousands of cases where others will impose upon a Christian or Christians to meet manufactured needs, false needs, or to do for them what they can do for themselves. The early Church quickly discovered that there were folks who joined their church because they saw a bunch of patsies they could sponge off of. These folks could sit back, claim they were waiting for the Parousia, and expect, almost demand, that the other Christians keep them housed and well fed. God forbid they should be hungry or homeless when Christ comes! Paul deals with this issue in this text and lays down a principle, namely, “No workey no foodey” or “No loaf to the loafer,” that could not have made the loafers, the sponges, the “poor me-s” very happy. Even though Jesus had nothing specific to say on the issue, Paul derived this principle from what Jesus did say and applied it to circumstances not specifically foreseen or treated by Jesus, who also experienced people imposing upon him unnecessarily.
There were people in the early Church communities, possibly attracted to those churches because they knew they would be taken care of, who used the Church’s practice of loving service to others to their own personal advantage and really abused and distorted Christian charity. Christian charity is doing for others what they cannot do for themselves or cannot do at the time. It is not enabling others to be dependent or lazy or idle or be busybodies because they have too much time on their hands. “ No loaf to the loafer” means that Christians who help people who can really help themselves are accomplices rather than servants of the Lord, accomplices in enabling those others to remain crippled, blind, deaf, leprous, etc. in the spiritual sense. They are not availing themselves of the grace of God and are not working when they can work. Paul saw through the ruse and recommended, ordered really, that refusing to feed such folks would be an effective remedy for getting them off their duffs and out of other people’s hair and other people’s business. It may come as a surprise to some that Paul does not say to help these folks anyway and then to try to convince them to help themselves. Of course, we presume that Paul had taken those first steps, much as Matthew 18: 15-18 has steps to take when a brother or sister is doing something wrong, first going to the person privately, then sending two or three others, and only as a last resort taking official action against them. So, here, we can presume that Paul would start off with the minimal step, like private counseling, before going to the point of refusing food to a hungry person. Certainly, if that person were hungry through no fault of his or her own, Paul, and all Christians, would feed him or her. However, Paul is talking about a continuing condition over a period of time and the failure of less drastic measures to work. Paul did not consider it Christian charity to enable a person to continue to be dependent upon “charity.” This could not have made the spongers and loafers happy, but it did clarify a question that many Christians still have today, namely, “What is my responsibility as a Christian towards people who refuse to help themselves and ask me to do for them what they could and should do for themselves?” Paul’s answer is clear and consistent with Christ’s real teaching on Christian love.
It matters whose behavior we imitate.
Even though we might have the right to certain advantages we do not need to exercise that right.
Paul was a model of hard work as well as tough love.
Christians should not enable dependencies or addictions under the guise of Christian charity.
Tough Love: Paul’s teaching is an early version of what we today would call “tough love.” The term “tough love” originally arose in the context of parents dealing with recalcitrant teenagers, but it has broadened to include loving behavior that can be interpreted as somewhat unloving by the person or persons on the receiving end. The most typical scenario is one where parents expel their child, sometimes older than a teen, from their home or put their child into an institution because of his or her misbehavior and refusal to change. There are, of course, many less extreme scenarios like refusing car privileges, overnights, allowances, etc. because of non-compliance with reasonable rules. In the “tough love” program the rules must be clearly understood; their compliance openly monitored; consistently enforced; and the consequences for non-compliance effective as deterrents. That is what Paul was doing when he wrote the text before us, especially the rule, “No loaf to the loafer.” He was making sure that all clearly understood that it was not acceptable for people to simply sponge off of others, sit around idle all day and mind other people’s business. He let it be known that he was going to monitor the behavior of such folks while he was visiting and presumably, expected the community leaders to continue to do so. If the unruly did not follow the rules they were to be ostracized until they did the equivalent of kicking a teenager out of the house until he or she reforms. We do not have to, indeed should not, lend money or give money to people we know will gamble it away or use it to buy drugs. That would be enabling their addiction, not helping them or acting in their best interests. We do not have to help people do things they could and should do themselves, unless, of course, they are in a time crunch. We should take the time to teach people how to do things they consistently ask us to do for them. The old adage applies: Give a person a fish and he or she eats for a day. Teach them to fish and they eat for a lifetime. Of course Christ wants us to go out of our way, to bend over backwards, even to die for the good of another. But, it must be for their “good.” To help someone continue in his or her destructive or disruptive behavior is to become an accomplice in it, not an angel of mercy. The idle Thessalonians thought they had an ironclad argument why their harder working members should feed, clothe and support them. Paul let them know they were wrong. One cannot use a religious, holy, pious reason to justify impious, unholy behavior, such as idleness, laziness or being a busybody. One cannot use the excuse that Christ is coming soon to sit down and become a couch potato, claiming to be waiting for that awesome moment, claiming that that awesome moment negates the purpose and need for work. Apparently, these folks never thought through their own position. What if everyone held to his or her position? Who would be left to earn the bread? It is not charity to help someone remain helpless. It is demeaning of the person’s dignity and freedom given in and by Christ.
Single Working Moms and Idle Clergy: Paul managed to hold down a more or less full time job in order to support himself and, presumably, do charity, real charity, and also preach the gospel “full time.” He did not sit home idle in some holy house or church. He did not let others wait on him, do his wash, cook his meals, clean up after him. He did not use his rather demanding ministry as an excuse not to do manual work and not to do the ordinary things we must in order to take care of ourselves. He did not let others do for him what he could do for himself. Thus, he had credibility when he preached. People listened because they saw the life he led, the work he did and admired his refusal to exercise his right to a livelihood because of his official church ministry. As such, Paul may not be a model for many clergy, but he is certainly an inspiration for many single and married, working moms, and dads, who have to juggle two or three roles simultaneously. Such busy folks cannot afford to let the lazy and idle impose upon their already precious time. Amen.
