Because I did read your post.
"There is a lot to unpack in your question. You mention two groups 1. Every person who lives in this country 2. Those without the means to feed themselves. No the government should not feed everyone who lives in this country.
1 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
You're response included misquoting
2 Thessalonians 3:10, a passage constantly quoted out of context in order to argue against feeding hungry people. Of course what Paul is talking about are those who, because they thought the end of the world was near, they didn't have to contribute anything or do anything--they stopped working, they simply exploited others in the Church. So the Apostle says that even though it would have been okay to eat for free, Paul and the other apostles when with the Thessalonians made sure to pay for their meals, and contributed their labor and while with the Thessalonians told them that those who weren't doing anything shouldn't eat. It was about those taking advantage of others, not depriving anyone food who needs food.
Further, using this passage at all, when we are talking about government programs, is weird. I am told all the time that I cannot apply Scripture about the just treatment of our neighbors to government action, since this is for the Church, not the government. To a degree that is certainly fair--the commandments are for us, and we cannot demand the powers and principalities to observe Christian commandments. But it then becomes bizarre to then try and use this passage in the context of government action, it's clearly a directive for the Thessalonian church, in the specific context of their circumstances.
But let's break this down further, my specific point about government action was about food assistance for those unable to get enough food. Notice in my post I said that everyone should be well fed, that is indeed a universal statement; but it is only in regard to those who are in need of food because they lack and are unable to receive sufficient food that I bring up government-led publicly funded food assistance.
Then you go on to say: "The second group who cannot feed themselves should receive help but not from the government alone. Families should take care of their own, churches should be involved, charities should be involved and the government should be involved. BUT this is not the sole responsibility of government."
So, good. You acknowledge that there should be government programs. You'll note that I never said only the government should step up. The role of families and churches to step up stands within the tradition of Christian ethics about how we engage with society through love, by following the commandments to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, and clothe the naked (this would have been a better place to mention
2 Thessalonians 3:10 by the way).
What bothers me is by using
2 Thessalonians 3:10 in the context of government support structures is the idea that we might try and justify not providing the means to help those who need help by trying to apply strict rules that create harm rather than good.
I think, therefore, that the standard should be to have food assistance programs, and we should make them as maximally available as possible. I do not believe that the possibility of some exploiting the system should ever be sufficient grounds to create barriers which may, even if only consequently or incidentally, negatively affect those in need.
It's why, for example, I also believe that there should be nation-wide school lunch programs made available to
all students. It's why I think that anyone who makes less than 20k a year (depending on family size, this would scale up) should automatically be accepted into food assistance programs. The overwhelming majority of people in need do work, or would work if they could. That means food assistance should be the norm, rather than the exception. Not for people who are
quite comfortably able to feed themselves and their families, but for all who are hungry and need food but struggle to make ends meet. If you are making 100k a year, you don't need food assistance, but a family of four making less than 50-60k a year are in desperate need of food assistance. And even then, if the occasionaly 100k earner somehow exploits the system, while I think that makes them a bad person, I don't think that should have any negative impact on those who do need assistance. I would rather accidentally help someone who doesn't need help, rather than accidentally not help someone who does need help. I would rather error on the side of mercy.
-CryptoLutheran
