Feeding the hungry is a clear moral test, and we’re failing

Photo: Gerald Farinas.

As an elder and Clerk of Session, and I am still haunted by the question of what we have become as a nation. How can a country so rich, and one where so many people claim to follow Christ, struggle so viciously over the basic issue of feeding its hungry?

The simple truth is that our political fight over federal food aid reveals a deep crisis in our national soul. The unconditional call of Christian charity is crashing against a cynical political view that seems more interested in punishing the unworthy than in preventing human suffering.

In our faith tradition, the directive is absolute. As someone who helps guide those going into ministry in the presbytery’s CPM, I know the weight of the Gospels, especially Matthew 25. When you feed the hungry, you are serving Christ himself.

This is a command without conditions. It does not ask us to run background checks or check tax returns. It simply says, "Act."

Yet, when this principle enters the political arena, everything changes. The debate moves away from starving children and shifts entirely to bureaucratic details, to fears of fraud and concerns over budget lines. Food aid stops being a moral duty and becomes a social entitlement that we try to police with suspicion.

I understand this reality personally. I grew up as a latchkey kid because my immigrant mother and father were working two jobs each, every single day, just to ensure we had food on the table.

We weren't lazy. We were desperate and working constantly.

When I hear people argue that we must restrict aid because it fosters dependency, I hear a deep disrespect for the struggle that millions of American families face. For many, hard work is simply not enough to escape hunger.

The moral core of my concern lies in this cold calculation: the willingness of nearly half the country to accept the worst outcome, innocent people starving, to prevent a small amount of "leakage" or fraud in the system.

As an elder, I believe that this choice is a failure of faith. The risk of program misuse is the lesser cost; a starving neighbor is the ultimate cost.

The sin of omission, failing to act when we can relieve suffering, is a heavier moral burden than risking a bureaucratic mistake.

When we prioritize policing aid over providing it, we are effectively punishing the many vulnerable people, the children, the working poor, to try and catch the few bad actors. We allow suspicion to erode our solidarity.

My faith compels me to compassion.

My life experience reminds me that hunger is a constant, painful threat.

For those of us who call ourselves Christian, the debate over food aid is our most crucial test.

We have to demand that our collective focus moves away from the politics of suspicion and returns to the absolute, non-negotiable duty to feed our neighbors.

This is the only path that reconciles our national policies with the sacred values we claim to hold.