The eCrozier

Nearly 15% of U.S. households, in the world’s richest nation, have food insecurity. That’s obscene enough, but it would be easier to accept if we knew that the percentage of hungry people was falling. But that’s not the case. Our nation has actually seen a 25% increase in food insecurity over the last decade. Food insecurity, which is just a wonkish term for hunger, was actually falling in our country for decades since the 1960s, but not so more recently.

The cause of increasing hunger is complicated. It doesn’t lend itself to the simple sound bytes found on cable news. From my analysis of this crisis, the increase in hungry people in our midst is due to the interplay of unemployment/underemployment, continued wage stagnation, growing income disparity, misguided government actions (there’s a surprise), and in some cases, poor choices by individuals who are lured by low cost foods that provide little nutrition and actually contribute to obesity and diabetes.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is our shared way as citizens to help reduce hunger. It used to be called Food Stamps. It provides a monthly food subsidy based on family size and monthly income. It’s a proven way (the data are clear) to provide a nutritional safety net for hungry families. Hunger would be much worse than it is without SNAP. There’s no credible evidence of significant abuses with SNAP and lots of evidence that it reduces hunger among the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens like children, disabled persons, and elderly people.

But now, due to our recurring budget deficits, there’s a political push to significantly cut SNAP to needy families in order to reduce that deficit. Now, I believe we need to cut the deficit, but this particular way, on the backs of the most vulnerable, is cruel and short-sighted. This becomes especially clear since we now know that some of the politicians calling for such cuts are the same ones who have personally received millions of dollars of farm subsidies for themselves and who recently voted to continue to receive them. So, they have concluded, it’s all right for them to receive a subsidy, but it’s not all right for hungry people to receive one. Talk about unjust desserts!

The Bible is quite clear: the mark of a righteous people is how well they treat the most vulnerable among them. As a Church following Jesus, we can’t abdicate to government our own responsibility to reduce hunger. Congregations like St Athanasius Brunswick, Christ Church Augusta, and other congregations provide food for hungry families in their respective communities. And we have other congregations like St Patrick’s Albany and our three congregations in Thomasville, who are getting to the root of the hunger crisis by establishing community gardens to help hungry families feed themselves.

In following Jesus, we’re all well aware of our own sinfulness, which tells us we’ll never get life right this side of heaven, but that should never stop us from seeking to do the right thing and in this case it is quite clear. The right thing is for hungry people to be fed. This is a goal in which all of our congregations can and should participate.

+Scott