Kaz Trypuc

From Brian Volck at Ekklesia Project:

Hugh Thompson, the U.S. Army helicopter pilot who stopped the My Lai massacre, died earlier this month. It took years for his actions to be recognized as heroic, but forcing superior officers to cease killing civilians took great courage. Perhaps pacificts and advocates of just war can better appreciate their shared convictions by pausing to consider this man's witness.

Amen.

I once again turn to the issue of government spending. Last time I explored how a minimum wage increase was struck down for the 7th consecutive year while Congress gave itself its 7th raise during that period and I also looked at new bankruptcy legislation that benefitted creditors and not those in debt. This week Congress has moved forward with proposed budget cuts in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. On face, this is a commendable course of action. Unfortunately, these cuts include many social programs that benefit the poor, the elderly and the disabled, while, thankfully, leaving food stamps untouched.


I am not shocked because I realize that these things happen all the time (with both democrats and republicans) when Congress sits down to trim the budget. I am not frustrated because I understand why Pres. Bush and Congress have other priorities, even if I do not share them. But what angers me in this situation are the attitudes of those involved. Pres. Bush has a particularly cavalier attitude about the cuts. While some speculate he will veto the bill because it cuts "$5.4 billion in subsidies to some regional insurance companies," he seems all too excited about the rest of it.

Bush didn't make too much of the veto threat issued in his name, instead thanking the Senate for the cuts to health care programs for the elderly, poor and disabled while leaving food stamps untouched.

"This is a major step forward," said Gregg, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "It is a step towards fiscal responsibility and it is a reflection of the Republican Congress' commitment to pursue the path of fiscal responsibility."

That is a forward step? Cutting programs to the elderly, poor, and disabled? I would rather the government be saddened at their inability to afford these programs and set a goal to once again be able to afford them than to do this with smiles on their faces. This an unfortunate step backward, and no one wants to say that. "Fiscal responsibility" is the sole concern; "social responsibility" is out the window altogether, it's not even a close second. Can no one say, "well, it's unfortunate, but we felt we had no choice"?


Ironically, Pres. Bush made his official comments on the cuts while attending a conference on poverty and economic development at a seaside resort.

What better way to show our friends down south that America is sympathetic to the plight of the third-world, then to cut funding to the programs that directly benefit America's poorest and most disadvantaged classes!


Fortunately, the National Council of Churches spoke out against these cuts yesterday, even sitting down with Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to appeal. Now, I am reluctant to allow the Church to be relegated to the role of lobbyist or of chaplain, but in this case I am pleased that Christians are willing to ask other Christians to consider the witness of the Church to the poor. Particularly, when one Christian, George W. Bush, recently pledged greater understanding and support for the poor following the eye-opening experience that was the relief disaster in New Orleans, albeit not from the Church but from the government. Yet, I full well expect the Christians (both Democrats and Republicans) in Congress to move forward anyway. And it appears they will do so with glee.

I just saw this article on my way to bed. Apparently the same person who brought a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of "under God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance (dismissed) has now challenged the constitutionality of having to say it altogether and has won.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Interestingly enough I think it keeps school children "free from a coercive requirement to affirm" the State. Some might say it even goes beyond affirming the state and ends up idolizing it. Anyway, thanks for making it easier for Christians to resist your coercive formation of loyalty.

And I return...

Glance at this story from Reuters. What in the heck? I understand, if not condone, the use of nuclear weapons in a large-scale superpower exchange. But this seems to me to be rather "unjust" even under the US's various definitions. So, there is a terrorist or group of terrorists hiding in a wherehouse somewhere in some other country who are going to unleash some biological/chemical/nuclear weapon on the US and we respond by nuking whatever country they are in. So, in order to protect millions of Americans lives we kill millions of innocent foreigners just to get a few terrorists. For a country whose policy is to not negotiate with terrorists I find this odd. So does this mean if it came down to a terrorist blowing up a busful of American kids or the US blowing up a busful of (insert nationality here) kids, Bush would choose the latter? That's some measure of justice. Maybe the US should have let the Holocaust continue so that American boys wouldn't have died on the beaches of Normandy.

1. 30 books in 30 days is HARD. You and I knew this already, but it's not easy to keep up, especially given the number of summer activities going on in the month of July. This would be easier if I lived in Fargo, ND during January. I won't tell you how far behind I am because I am not sure I could handle the news. I still have hope I can pull it off.

2. My friend ashbyduck has more wit to her than people realize. Her posts are short, sweet delights to find on my friends page each day, even if all one says is "hee." Have I taken the time to laugh today, I wonder to myself. Laughing is good for the soul and for the body (the benefits of laughter for health and well-being are well documented). She has a gift for drawing the simplest and most profound of conclusions from the seeming insignificance of our daily lives. Like this:

sometimes you want to throw yourself on your bed and scream and kick and yell at all the things that aren't fair, and then cry yourself to sleep, but you can't, because you have a lot to do, and because you already did that yesterday.

3. Following the London terrorist bombings, once again the West is resolved to bring justice to the world. Pres. Bush thinks America will only lose the War on Terror if "we lose our nerve." Contrast that statement with his claim late last week that the West will overcome their "ideology of hate" with an "ideology of hope and compassion." The president also said terrorists "believe that the world's democracies are weak, and that by killing innocent civilians they can break our will." I direct you back to an earlier post I made about the US's fire bombing of Dresden during WWII, which itself was a direct attack on German civilians meant to "break the will" of the German people.

I take Bush's statements to mean, especially in light of the recent statements about US casualties, that no matter what the death toll to civilians or troops, America's will to wage war will not broken. Coupled with the "lose our nerve" statement, I think Bush believes our willingness to wage war is directly linked to our willingness to continue to kill (civilians even)--to "bring this fight to the enemy," as he has also said. So it really just boils down to who can kill more and more effectively, and who can stomach it the longest. The first one to get tired of killing loses. Some "culture of life" we live in.

4. I heard a great story on NPR about author Lisa See and her new book, Snow Flower and the Secret Fan. She writes about traditional Chinese women and the practice of foot-binding, and has brought light to the existence of nushu. Nushu was a language invented by Chinese women to speak amongst themselves as a way to bring a voice to those who had know way of expressing themselves within society that taught them to be quiet and submissive. Nushu provided a way for them to narrate that existence. There is only one known remaining woman who grew up using nushu, and she has become rather famous in recent years. A nushu school has been opened in China to preserve the language, although the women of today completely fail to grasp the meaning and history behind it. See's book attempts to place nushu within the history of women in China as a way to remember their spirit and the lives they've lived. Looks to be some interesting future reading...

What has gained media notoriety overnight due to official release of Italian court documents contains the seeds of something for more worrisome.

CIA abduction in Italy shows US bungling

The story all over the news is of 19 bungling covert CIA agents who abducted an Italian imam and flew him to Italy to be questioned in regards to terrorist activities in Europe. The agents ran up $150,000 tabs in Milan's finest hotels, provided driver's license numbers, rented cars and racked up some frequent flier miles on the way. Many of the news stories contain interviews with ex-CIA agents who have called the operation a total blunder and wonder what has happened to CIA training since the Cold War ended.

I am far more concerned about this extradition-defying practice of KIDNAPPING, which has come to be called "extraordinary rendition," and it takes place quite often apparently. In order to circumvent diplomatic (and legal) means of extraditing alleged terrorists, the US kidnaps them, ships them off to a third country (one where the laws are not so set in stone), like Egypt, and then violates their rights (tortures them) outside of the watchful eye of the international community. This reminds me of back when Att. Gen. John Ashcroft released an official memo detailing how interrogation laws might be circumvented by certain means to allow for certain kinds of "torture".

Kidnapping and torture don't seem like the ways this thing called "freedom" ought to be protected. Imagine if the police started kidnapping and torturing alleged criminals to get information from them. It would be a mad, mad world out there. But the US intelligence community has been doing just that. I would rather it be in the open, and called "bungled," than for the US to continue to be able to wage war in secret and in shadowy ways, that although possibly effective, fly in the face of the openness just wars are to be fought with.

"The world is one step closer to becoming that which it has fought so hard against--injustice and inequality."

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. -Bertrand Russell

Cable company's ex-CEO jailed for 15 years

Amidst an abundance of corporate fraud cases in the news, one case was making headlines today due to the severity of punishment imposed on these corporate criminals. The 80-year-old founder of the nation's 5th largest cable company, Adelphia, and his 49-year-old son were sentenced to 15 and 20 years, respectively, in federal prison for defrauding lendors and investors of almost $2 billion, ultimately leading to bankruptcy filings.

Having seen The Corporation and posted on it you understand my aversions to the monsters of capitalism. Yet I am having trouble issuing a hooray for the crackdowns on Tyco, Adelphia, and others. Why? Well, I am having trouble seeing the impacts on workers and other stakeholders. With a few exceptions where pension plans were raided or employees were laid off, there doesn't seem to be too much "harm" done.

From one article: It appears all that has happened is some other capitalist tycons and creditors lost $2 billion. Defense attorney Peter Fleming argued that many in Rigas's hometown of Coudersport, Pennsylvania, benefited from his charity. The judge was unmoved.

``What he did to Coudersport, he did with assets and by means that were not appropriately his,'' Sand said. ``To be a great philanthropist with other people's money is really not very persuasive.''

Without going so far as to call these people modern-day Robin Hoods, what have they done other than been bad capitalists? The creditors and investors who support capitalist economic networks are the ones to benefit--not the blue collar workers. From an subversive position (that I don't necessarily endorse), wouldn't this be the proper way for capitalism to crush under its own weight? Some might even say that it is inevitable. But hey, just make sure you "justly" make $2 billion and there won't be any trouble.

Let my rant be followed by a good reminder from poserorprophet on God's preferential option for the poor.

Since May 19 President Mugabe of Zimbabwe has been leading "Operation Murambatsvina"--meaning drive out trash--where 20,000-190,000 shacks and makeshift homes have been destroyed by police in an effort to "clean up" urban areas.

By comparison, the Southern California Wildfires of 2003 destroyed over 4,800 homes and other buildings.

Over 32,000 people have been arrested for constructing illegal housing and other buildings as well. The poorest of the world's poor--counts range from 200,000 to 1 million--have had their homes burned or bulldozed to the ground. These poor people are "trash" needing to be cleaned up? Many of them are the 760,000 AIDS orphans living in Zimbabwe with nowhere to go. And now they are refugees in their own country. These are people who already deal with day-long gas lines, a 125% inflation rate, and acute shortages of sugar, milk, and grain. Bread lines are once again reforming now that thousands of shops have been burned down as well. "Thousands of people who apparently have nowhere else to go [who] are living amid the ruins of their bulldozed homes in the winter chill," as one article says. Some experts are saying that this is a way for Mugabe to disperse a population of people that has grown weary of his 25-year rule that has let AIDS run rampant and children go hungry, or just a political tactic to distract the country from the other problems it faces.

Pray for these people.



The Guardian: Zimbabwe Police Say 20,000 Shacks Razed
The Mercury (South Africa): Zimbabwe's bread queues are back
Reuters: ZIMBABWE: Displaced families face bleak winter
Kansas City Star: Zimbabwe doomed to despair while its architect of ruin remains
IOL (South Africa): Thousands jailed as Mugabe 'drives out trash'

I have been too busy to invest in blogging as of late, but this post cannot just sit on my desktop as an unpublished word doc like all the others the past two weeks.

News: DEMOCRATS VOTED OUT OF CHURCH BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICS MEMBERS SAY

Many reports have surfaced in recent days of a North Carolina Baptist minister who led the expulsion of 9 church members (including one deacon) who openly did not support Pres. Bush.

This is fundamentally counter to the life of the Church. Excommunication has always been used to defend the witness of the Church from false teachings, from doctrinal heretics to hot-button political players who defy the church's teachings. Even issues like abortion and birth-control are more fundamentally linked to Church teachings than are individual politicians. Regardless, those who deny the basic teachings of the Christian faith have been met with swift excommunication from the recognized Church Body. But George Bush is NOT Jesus Christ. To deny him is NOT to deny a basic Christian teaching. Furthermore, how is the Church to be a witness to the reconciling of the world to God in Jesus, if it is so divided itself? Not only were these members released of church membership, they were asked to not return in times of worship to gather with the rest of the Body.

Is no one welcome at the table of our Lord? Does Christ not bid anyone come and worship? Well, apparently grace and reconciliation apply to Jews and Greeks, but not Kerry supporters. What's next? Appointing George W. Bush as the Protestant Pope? Is the worthiness of a person to join in the life of God lived in the Church dependent upon their allegiance to one Texan? As Paul asks a divided church in Corinth, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?" Neither ought this church or any church owe any allegiance to the man George Bush. But of course, this is another fine example of how the American church has become ensnared by the State--are we serving God or men?

More sad is that both sides are now gathering together teams of lawyers. Does not Jesus have something to say about reconciling with your neighbor on the way to court (Matthew 5:21-26), and did not Paul say something about Christians not making enemies of one another so that our witness to the Gospel be pure in the eyes of the world (1 Corinthians 1:10-17)? The Church cannot hand over internal authority and power to the American legal system. Unity within the Church is brought about through Christ and Christ alone, not through the strokes of pen made by a judge. This only further incorporates the power struggle that is the politics of the world into the life of God's people. Reconciliation takes place at the Table, not in a courtroom. This battle may already be lost, as so much of this church's identity, all of ours even, has been compromised. The Church as a whole must answer with a resounding voice in the words of that popular worship song:

Father we come to you,
in spirit and truth with our heart and our mind
Father we want to keep,
the unity Of the spirit in the bond of peace

One body, one spirit One hope of our call
One faith and one baptism One Father of all
Who is above all, and through all, and in us all

Oh lord let forgiveness rain down
Let your unity resound in our hearts
Oh lord let us learn to forgive
Let your children learn to live as one Body
Oh lord let forgiveness rain down
Let your unity resound in our heart
Oh lord let us learn to forgive
Let your children learn to live as one Body

Two updates:

I recently blogged about American Catholics following the results of a poll after John Paul II's death that outlined the hope they had that the new Pope would stand for (as if he was an elected representative of the people, not Christ) what they stood for--what the Catholic Church has often labeled "liberal." These "liberal" values concern women in ministry, homosexuality, birth control, and stem cell research.


Well, the latest poll of that same group, suggests they are unhappy with the new Pope and will instead just follow their conscience. Conscience you say? The Vicar of Christ, moved by the Holy Spirit, is not a figure one can just shrug off because he holds different views than one would like. At least, if one is to disagree it is with reverence and with an eye to the continued challenging of faithfulness of the Church and oneself. But here you have American Catholics giving up on the Church as well as the Pope, and instead turning towards their individual consciences, as if they are suffiecent. Who needs the Pope? Who needs the Church? Well, I guess I'll just get up and walk out of the Church the next time I am challenged to assess my own faithfulness. I don't want to be challenged, I want someone to agree with me! Ridiculous! I am sympathetic to many of their issues with Rome but I think more is at stake than our own moral justification. This picking and choosing can only compromise the witness of the Roman Catholic Church to the world. Admittedly, I must give more credit to American Catholics than what the poll shows, but I the language is troubling, and I can only hope that the unity among Christians the Pope has already spoke of can sustain a more faithful witness for Christians from all denominations and continents.

In another post not too long ago I wrote about the newest bankruptcy legislation in Congress. Well, as of yesterday the White House signed it into law. America can sleep better at night knowing Visa and American Express have recouped more of their money this quarter. Phew.

Rant to follow:
CNN conducted a ghastly poll yesterday in reaction to Pope John Paul II's passing. The poll asked Americans their general thoughts on the late Pope and his place in history, and posed the question to Catholics, what ought his successor be like?

Sadly, the results of this poll do reflect the estrangement the American Catholic Church has felt from Europe and the rest of the world in recent decades. A simple majority would like the next Pope to allow Catholics to use birth control, priests to marry, and stem-cell research to be conducted. Regardless of my thoughts on those issues, I am more greatly troubled by the view that the Vicar of Christ is someone people hope aligns with their views. Instead of hoping that the next Pope serves faithfully as the head of the Catholic Church, spurring her towards greater faithfulness throughout the world, people are hoping the next Pope will let them do all the things they've wanted to do, this time with a blessing. The answers to the question posed in the poll already presume that the right answer to such issues are to allow priests to marry, birth control to be used, and stem cell research to be conducted and that Church just needs to "get with the times." Where is the authority? Where is the revelation? It does not seem to be coincidence that the American Catholics polled suffer from much of the same self-indulgent approach to ecclesial formation as American Protestants. The theological trends toward the individual that have arisen within Protestant thought were introduced by outside forces, namely the modern nation-state. It is then no surprise that the same institutions have succeeded in internalizing the Catholic "religion" so that the Church is a matter of convenience, a place to gather with those who think like us. The Church is formed by the demographics and wills of the individuals making it up, rather than the being animated by the Spirit of the Lord, administered by the faithful, seeking to form the lives of congregants around the doctrine and mission of the church. The same sentiment coming from this poll is found in congregations that force service-splits to accomodate different worship styles. My prayer is that the Pope will be a faithful disciple, a representative of Christ, earnestly seeking wisdom, learned in the ways of the Church, who will guide and instruct those under his care (some 1 billion Catholics worldwide) rather than some representative of the Church seeking to legitimate its own practices.

As both a pacifist and someone who works on a daily basis with people who have disabilities, I have a unique, if not strange, perspective on this issue. But both of those aspects of my life stem from my commitment to Christian discipleship and therefore my position on this issue is as much a result of my calling to follow Christ, as it is related to my personal beliefs and experiences.



There are two sides emerging on this debate over Terry Schiavo. There are those who say she has a "right to life" and others who say she has a "right to die." My goal here is to show that neither of those positions are consistent with Christian ethics and that we only do violence to the world to put things in such terms.

During Holy Week I am reminded of Jesus' refusal to fight for his life. He instead viewed it as belonging to God, meant for the purposes of God. When we begin viewing life as a right I think that is where we begin to get into trouble. Our lives belong to the God who created us for himself, and Christians have made such a confession in their baptisms, where we die and are born new in a life devoted to God. Coupled with our hope in the Resurrection, we really cannot be afraid of death, since we have already died, and the life we do have is now life in Christ, so that if we die, we may live in Him. Echoing Jesus' final words, what does it mean for us then to "unto God commend our bodies?"

Terry is not terminally ill any more than you or I, in that we are all going to die whether we want to or not. Certain functions of her body are impaired, yes, but she is not "dying" in the classical sense, which usually brings up the euthanasia debate. With assisted-feeding Terry would live out the natural length of her life. Her feeding tube is merely there to aid in her eating/drinking, much like the dependency an infant has on being fed by others. Without this tube Terry will die of starvation and dehydration, and regardless of her persistent vegitative state, this is a pretty awful way to die. Terry is not being artificially kept alive by some large, robotic apparatus that maintains otherwise failed internal functions. She is merely being fed. Each weekday I work with people who have difficulty eating--from not being able to use their hands, to having difficulty chewing and swallowing, I am there to assist people who need help caring for themselves. I must admit that they are more "there" mentally than Terry is (given her doctors' diagnoses), but I mean to show that the ability to eat is no measure of someone's ability to live a meaningful life.

Inasmuch as we need to recognize that life is a gift from God and we have no right to it, we also need to recognize that we do not have a right to take it or end it. The same is true of Terry and her very own life. Much has been made by her husband of a wish by Terry before her accident that she not be kept alive in such a state. But she has no such right to decide when she lives and when she dies, although this by no means is to say anything about the laying down of one's life in obedience to Christ. That choice, if really made, was in fact a suicidal claim of ownership over her life. Now, even her husbands insistence that we "do what's right for Terry" or "what Terry would have wanted" reinforces the idea that we are all autonomous individuals with a right to live/die. The loss of her autonomy only makes her seem more desperately in need of a relief from the suffering since that autonomy is what many believe makes life worth living.

On the other hand, the keep-Terry-alive camp uses the same rights language to fight for Terry's life, and many discredit her husband's reports that she ever wished anything than to be kept alive. In both cases, the emphasis is primarily put on what Terry would want. If you look at my previous post you will see that our lives are in the hands of the community as much as ours, and that this is not a matter of "personal wishes." The community that is the Church of Christ also happens to be the community that holds our lives and offers our life to God on our behalf (much like the congregation's role in baptism).

I do understand what the parents are feeling though: hope that she is indeed "alive" (in a non-bioligical sense). Similar to the way Christian parents hope life has begun in the womb (the reason the Catholic church opposes artifical birth control), we rightfully hope for the flourishing of life in all people. Yes we were reminded on Ash Wednesday, from dust we came, to dust we shall return. Death is seldom something anyone has a hold on, and we in the Church have been trained through various practices to respond to death in a way that is fitting. But in this case, Terry is not dying and we do not need to "let her go." Regardless of her brain activity, or of her wishes then or now, I can only pray in hope that the gift of life she received is one that we can nurture and nourish (even through a feeding tube). And in caring for life as a gift, we can better come to terms with death.

That said, I am not sure that court action and legislative maneuvering are the way to go. To fight for Teri on the grounds of her right to life only legitimizes the language that makes life a possession to be done with as we please, rather than used for the fullness of the communal life lived unto God. The Vatican issued a statement to its church members instructing them what the position of the Catholic church was on this case involving one of their baptized members. We cannot expect much from a world that treasures individual autonomy and inalienable "rights," but the Church is far better equipped to deal with matters of life and death. Hopefully from this case the we will learn how to better confront such issues so that we always carefully and thankfully receive the gift of life without straying into an idolatry of it. Also, I hope we can learn the difference in language that makes "rights" inconsequential, and thus removes our need to fight for them in courts, in chambers, or in hospices in Florida, but instead act as a Church Body, at the bedside, feeding those who cannot feed themselves, and holding the hands of those whose time has come.

I asked a friend of mine, a Christian doctor, what he thought of this issue and here were a few questions he posed to frame the debate:

If there is such a thing an an inalienable right to life, at what point do the effort and resources devoted to sustaining a single life cross into idolatry of "life itself," divorced from any proper ordering of the love of life as suordinate to the love of God?

If there is a "right to die," (a strange concept indeed, since all of us are going to die whether we have a right to it or not), how deeply is this right rooted in the modern worship of autonomy, divorced from any community at all, much less the people God gathers into the church?

If the sufferings of any part of the Body of Christ are my sufferings as well (1 Cor 12:26, which one would do well to read in the context of Paul's larger "body" argument, particularly chapters 11-15), how do Christians explain their exquisite concern for this one white American when hundreds of thousands of non-white, non-Americans are dying from lack of food and water, not because of natural disasters, but by political and economic structures enforced and sustained for the material benefit of the so-called developed countries? Does the Body of Christ stop at the border? Must we limit the corporal acts of mercy (the practices upon which the nations shall be judged, per Matthew 25) to people who "look like us," whatever "us" means?

What could it possibly mean to call the matter (as some do) a "purely private decision, best left to the... (pick one: husband, parents,etc.)?" In what way can Christians understand health as an individual concern, something held not in common but in isolation?

Finally, are we concerned about this high-profile case because, if things don't go "our way," eveything will be up for grabs? Don't most Americans, including most American Christians, live in such a way that everything is already up for grabs, though we pretend this is not the case? When pro-war, pro-death penalty conservatives rail against a "culture of death" and liberal Ninth Amendment maximalists want things "left in state courts," I can't help but suspect some hypocrisy. As for Christians (like me), it's a little late in the game to start acting as though we are consistent in our valuing of life. Death focuses our attention when there's no other amusement to divert it.

If you've been following the news recently, you may have noticed two seemingly unrelated stories coming out of the Capitol. In recent days, the Senate has struck down two pieces of legislation that would have aided the poorer people in this country.

Minimum Wage Hike Struck Down This marks the gazillionth time in the past 7 years that Congress has failed to raise the federal minimum wage since the last adjustment. During that same time, the Senate has given itself a pay raise 7 times amounting to about $26,000. Hmm.

New Bankruptcy Legislation This bankruptcy legislation will now move onto the House, where it is expected to be passed, and then to Pres. Bush, who has already pledged to pass it. The aim of the legislation will make it more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy and get free of debt. Not only will there be stricter criteria, but now the creditors can seek to recoup more money than was previously permitted. Although many proponents say that this legislation is actually meant to target debt evaders, like gamblers, they forget that gambling addictions effect the poor more than any other group. As my favorite sports columnist Greg Eaterbrook wrote recently, most gambling victimizes the poor and those in dire straights for money -- offering the illusion of any easy fortune, then actually making things worse. Government run lotteries are just as bad as the illegal stuff. Few things are sadder than to be in a convenience store on a Friday night, payday, and see people who are pressed for money asking again and again for $5 scratch-off lottery tickets in the hopes of bringing home a wad of cash to show their wives or husbands. Instead, they bring home empty pockets and woe.

Throughout Israel's history, but especially in Jeremiah, YHWH judges His people for their failure to practice the Sabbath and Jubilee laws regarding the releasing of debts. Immediately following the proclamation of liberty to the slaves, the slaveowners took back the slaves they had set free, bringing them into subjection once again. YHWH’s response: “You have not obeyed me by proclaiming liberty, everyone to his brother and to his neighbor; behold, I proclaim to you liberty [i.e., I deliver you] to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine, says the Lord” (34:17). Jesus’ teachings are routinely tied to the forgiving of debts in the economic life of the Kingdom where the poor are blessed. Indeed, the proper reading of the verb aphiemi in the Lord’s Prayer, seen in the form opheilema, is not “transgressions” as has commonly been interpreted, but is rather a precisely monetary debt. The form Aphesis is routinely found in reference to the Jubilee laws in the Septuagint (Lev. 25:28, 54; Deut. 15:1; Isa. 61:2; Jer. 35:8). So we are left with “forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

Some of the most conservative rabbis issued provisions much like the current bankruptcy legislation, that allowed for the recovering of debts from the poor, despite the jubilee year. As the jubilee year approached lenders would lend out less and less to the poor for fear of it not being returned, stifling the economy. For such a reason, the prosboul, a sort of small claims court, was created to allow the recovering of monies owed even during the Sabbath year. Jesus made a point of noting to the Pharisees that the Sabbath year, as much as the day, must be kept—remission of debts was not optional.

Both aspects of the Jeremiah story are present here: the failure to raise minimum wage and sustain the lives of others once out of debt, and the failure to remit debts in the first place. America will most likely not be delivered into the hands of Babylon, but no one, not even the Church, will be spared the judgment of the Lord for how we have blessed the poor. Let us practice aphesis towards one another lest we be like the unmerciful servant in Matt. 18:23-34 (read it).