"If You Work, You Eat" — A Reflection on Welfare and the Future of Care
- Jeremy Bratcher
- Aug 13
- 7 min read
John Smith, the leader of Jamestown, famously told the colonists, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” He was echoing 2 Thessalonians 3:10, where Paul warns the church not to enable idleness.
Then there’s Jesus’ words in Matthew 26:11: “The poor you will always have with you.”
At first, they seem to pull in opposite directions — one calling for responsibility, the other recognizing persistent need. But together, they remind us that work is tied to human dignity, and compassion is a permanent call on God’s people.
From Church to State
For much of history, poverty care was personal and local. Families cared for one another. Churches gave alms. Neighbors shared what they had.
The Industrial Revolution changed that. Urban poverty grew beyond what small networks could handle. In the U.S., the Great Depression broke the old systems entirely, and the New Deal marked the beginning of a massive transfer of responsibility from the church and community to the federal government.
Over time, we built the largest poverty-alleviation structure in history:
1960s – War on Poverty programs expand welfare and food assistance.
1980s–90s – Eligibility grows, and the welfare rolls swell.
1996 Welfare Reform Act – Adds time limits and work requirements, temporarily reducing long-term dependency.
2000s–2020s – Economic recessions, healthcare expansions, and COVID-era relief bring new surges in benefits.
The Dependency Dilemma
Even well-intended programs can unintentionally create patterns of dependency. Economists call it the “welfare trap” — when earning more income causes a sudden loss of benefits, leaving families worse off financially for working harder.
And while most policymakers say their goal is compassion, critics note that some structures make dependence more politically advantageous than self-sufficiency.
Whether or not that’s intentional, the effect is the same:
Multi-generational reliance on aid.
Erosion of personal networks of support.
Loss of the dignity and purpose that come from meaningful work.
From a biblical lens, this matters.
In ancient Israel, the poor were not given a bag of grain at the temple gates and sent on their way. Instead, there was the practice of gleaning (Leviticus 19:9–10).
Farmers were commanded not to harvest the edges of their fields or pick up what fell. Those portions were left for the poor, widows, foreigners, and strangers to gather for themselves. This wasn’t just charity. This was about human dignity. The person in need had to work the field, interact with others, and participate in the rhythm of community life.
Fast forward to the early church in Acts 2 and 4, where we see a different but equally relational model: “They had everything in common.”
This wasn’t government redistribution; it was people selling property or possessions to meet the needs of their neighbors. The help wasn’t anonymous . New Testament community care was shared face-to-face, meal-to-meal, where people knew each other’s stories.
Both models share a principle:
Provision came with presence — people were part of one another’s lives.
Help required participation — those receiving help contributed where they could.
Relationships were central — because poverty is more than a lack of money; it’s often a loss of connection, trust, and opportunity.
From a broader human perspective, even for someone who doesn’t share a biblical worldview, history affirms the same truth. Societies function best when care is connected to community.
The best programs, ancient or modern, are the ones that restore both stability and belonging.
That’s what’s missing in many modern systems. While today’s welfare programs save lives and stabilize families, they can also create patterns of long-term reliance. The personal connection ...the shared work and mutual responsibility ... often gets replaced by paperwork and policy.
This is where the “dependency dilemma” emerges:
Benefit Cliffs – Earning more can cost more if benefits vanish too quickly.
No Exit Pathways – Without structured transitions, temporary aid can become permanent.
In the biblical models, the pathway out of need was woven into the help itself. In many modern models, the pathway can disappear and the system ends up meeting needs without restoring purpose.
Critics argue that this structure rewards dependency, while supporters see it as essential safety. In reality, both can be true. The danger is when assistance meets needs without restoring purpose — because purpose is what lifts people long-term.
Welfare Spending vs. Poverty Rates
In other words, when assistance is separated from relationship and purpose, the outcomes can be underwhelming — even when the investment is massive.
That’s exactly what the numbers show. Over the past six decades, welfare spending in the United States has climbed steadily into the trillions, yet the poverty rate has barely moved in comparison. We’ve poured unprecedented resources into the problem, but because so much of that aid is delivered through systems that replace personal connection with bureaucracy, the results fall short of the promise.
The data is telling:
In 1964, welfare spending was hundreds of billions (inflation-adjusted), and the poverty rate hovered near 19.5%.
By 2019, spending exceeded $1 trillion, yet poverty only fell to around 10.5%.
In 2025, per-person welfare outlays for those in poverty are projected at $31,077 — nearly double the $15,650 poverty threshold — and yet millions remain trapped in generational need.
A system that provides for needs without providing for purpose creates dependence — and dependence without dignity is not compassion!
When the Government Steps Back
When that gap widens, it stops being an abstract policy debate and starts becoming a street-level reality. It’s the neighbor whose pantry runs empty before payday. The single parent choosing between rent and heat. The senior deciding which prescription they can skip this month.
And that’s where the real question comes: if government and nonprofits can’t meet every need, what will we do? Because when the safety net frays, it’s not just a system that fails — it’s people who fall.
The recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill” is being celebrated by some for fiscal restraint, but it also marks one of the most significant contractions of U.S. welfare access in decades.
Its provisions tighten eligibility, add work requirements, and cut funding for programs that millions of low-income Americans depend on for health care, food security, and stability. While intended to reduce government spending, the bill will likely leave states, communities, and nonprofits scrambling to fill widening gaps in support.
Key Changes and Projected Impacts:
Medicaid Restrictions: New work requirements (80 hours/month) for many adults; semiannual eligibility checks; cost-sharing increases; reduced funding streams for state Medicaid programs.
Food Assistance Cuts: $186 billion reduction in SNAP over 10 years, risking loss of free school meals for up to 18 million children.
Youth in Transition Impacted: Foster youth aging out of care will face new work requirements to receive food aid, removing existing protections.
Immigrant Access Tightened: Longer waiting periods and retroactive limitations for green card holders and refugees seeking health coverage.
Insurance Losses: Congressional Budget Office projects 10–11.8 million more Americans could become uninsured as a result of Medicaid and ACA subsidy changes.
Community Strain: Rural hospitals, community clinics, and nonprofits will likely see rising demand with fewer resources to meet it.
The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ isn’t theoretical—it’s tightening the safety net right now. As benefits shrink and eligibility tightens, it forces communities and churches to ask: if the system is pulling back, who will step forward?”
This is where the community must decide: Will we step into the gap, or watch the gap widen?
A Better Way Forward
Whether or not you hold a religious worldview, there are values that resonate across nearly every belief system and culture:
Dignity in Work – People thrive when they can contribute, create, and see their work valued. A healthy society not only provides opportunity but removes structural barriers that make participation costly or impossible.
Compassion Without Condescension – Help that strips dignity is rarely transformative. The goal is to meet urgent needs in ways that affirm worth, not create permanent dependence.
Shared Responsibility – Poverty is too complex for one sector to solve alone. It takes collaboration across boundaries (government, private sector, nonprofit, religious) to bring lasting change.
These principles matter now more than ever. With recent legislation tightening access to Medicaid, reducing food aid, and adding work requirements that some vulnerable people may struggle to meet, we will see more neighbors falling through the cracks. If the formal safety net narrows, the informal safety net—neighbors, congregations, civic clubs, community groups—must widen.
What Works Best:
The most effective approaches to poverty relief combine immediate stabilization with pathways to independence:
Job Training & Employment Pathways – Teaching in-demand skills, providing apprenticeships, and connecting people to sustainable jobs.
Mentoring & Relational Support – Offering one-on-one guidance, accountability, and encouragement for navigating life’s obstacles.
Affordable & Stable Housing – Housing-first models paired with support services reduce homelessness and free people to focus on work, health, and family.
Mental & Physical Health Care – Addressing untreated conditions that often prevent consistent work or schooling.
Bridging Benefits and Work – Creating community-led programs that fill the “benefits cliff” gap so people aren’t penalized for earning more.
Our Challenge:
If we want to see lasting change, we can’t rely on Washington to fix what only relationships can heal. Policy can help or hinder, but real transformation happens when communities design solutions that meet both the need and the person behind it. The measure of our compassion will be how willing we are to step forward when the system steps back.
Holding the Tension — And Stepping Into Action
If we only demand work, we risk ignoring real and urgent human need. If we only give without building purpose, we risk creating long-term dependency.
The challenge for all of us—regardless of belief—is to meet both needs: provision and purpose. That’s not just a balancing act for policymakers; it’s an everyday opportunity for people like you and me. The future of care in America will not be decided in a budget hearing alone—it will be shaped in our neighborhoods, offices, congregations, and community spaces.
Here’s where we can start:
Five Actions Anyone Can Take to Make a Difference
Engage Locally – Find one group, school, shelter, or community center in your area and show up—volunteer, offer skills, or simply be present.
Support Pathways, Not Just Patches – Give to organizations that provide job training, education, and mentoring alongside immediate aid.
Bridge the Gap for Someone You Know – Offer practical help—childcare for a single parent, transportation to interviews, help with paperwork—so they can move toward stability.
Advocate for Balanced Solutions – Use your voice to support policies that protect basic needs while also opening doors to self-sufficiency.
Build a Circle of Care – Create or join a network where people share tools, meals, connections, and encouragement—making community the first safety net.
Questions to Consider:
If the safety net in my community shrinks, what role could I play in making sure my neighbors don’t fall through?
Do I see poverty primarily as a policy problem to fix, or as a personal call to step closer to people in need?
How can I offer help in ways that build both provision and purpose for the person I’m serving?
The tension between provision and purpose will always be there. The question is whether we’ll leave it for “the system” to manage, or whether we’ll step into it ourselves—turning concern into action, and action into lasting change!
Comments