The Burning of Bread: A Christian Indictment
The Burning of Bread: A Christian Indictment
We have now reached the point where the State burns bread.
Five hundred metric tons of emergency food—enough to feed 1.5 million children for a week—is not being sent to war zones, to famine-struck regions, or even to our own undernourished neighborhoods. It is being destroyed. Intentionally. Bureaucratically. In the name of policy.
Let us be absolutely clear: this is not a scandal. It is a sin. And the Church must say so.
The incineration of food in a world where children cry themselves to sleep from hunger is not simply a bad decision. It is an act of calculated inhumanity, made all the more grotesque by its cold deliberation. This is Pharaoh, turning grain to ash while the children of Israel starve. This is Herod, not merely indifferent to the slaughter, but legislating it.
For Christians, this is not a matter of partisan alignment or political preference. It is a matter of discipleship. The One we follow was born into poverty, laid in a feeding trough, and spent his earthly ministry among the hungry. He fed them. He called them blessed. He warned of judgment for those who failed to do the same. “I was hungry,” He said, “and you gave me nothing to eat.” There is no loophole in that sentence. No exemption for red tape. No footnote for political expediency.
The early Church understood this as a first principle of the faith. Cyprian of Carthage declared in the third century, “The property of the wealthy belongs to the poor by right.” Not by donation. Not by virtue-signaling philanthropy. By right.
Ambrose of Milan was unflinching: “The rich man who gives to the poor is not giving what is his. He is paying what is owed.” The bishop saw clearly what we have tried to forget—that hoarding in the face of hunger is not a neutral act. It is theft.
Augustine preached with equal clarity: “You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to them what is theirs.” These were not throwaway lines. They were embedded in sermons preached to those in power, from the ambo of imperial cities. The words were dangerous then. They should be dangerous now.
And yet here we are. With a government setting fire to food while children starve, and clergy more concerned with optics than obedience. We see the loaves destroyed while those charged to preach Christ mumble about tone, timing, or jurisdiction.
Enough.
This is a moment of judgment—not divine wrath, but human choice. We will either recover our voice, or lose our integrity. We will either be the Church of the Crucified, or a chaplaincy to the empire.
To follow Christ is to stand with the hungry, not the ones who light the fires.
If we do not cry out now, the stones will. If we will not preach repentance to a culture that burns bread rather than share it, we have become salt that has lost its savor.
This is not about charity. It is about justice.
This is not about optics. It is about obedience.
This is not about politics. It is about the Gospel.
Duane W.H. Arnold
Michael Newnham
I am heartened by the fact that many “progressive” pastors and priests are standing and speaking to these atrocities daily.
Where the hell are the “conservative”,”Bible believing” brethren?
If you are a Christian leader you have an obligation to Jesus to stand for those He stood for…
a watershed moment when believers demonstrate what they really believe. This is an abominable decision and policy. For a govt which heralds its abolition of waste, fraud, and abuse, it has become what it repeatedly states it is against. People are more upset that Epstein Files/Lists aren’t forthcoming so they can virtue-signal and shame the perps. May Christ give wisdom, insight, and clarity to his people and guts to act and speak to power.
This was the first I had heard of it, which makes me wonder about the news cycle!
“a watershed moment when believers demonstrate what they really believe.”
We’ve had a bunch of these lately…
Linn,
There is so much going on it’s hard to keep track of the latest atrocities….
Not sure whether to cry or scream…or both.
The blood of those already starved to death by hunger calls to God from the earth, as will the blood of those now starving.
Alas, Babylon.
I’ve been wondering about the news cycle for months now. I think fear has taken hold of the mainstream legacy media, and they are afraid to report fully and completely how far things have gone.
Sadly, long before today the governmental destruction of foodstuffs for policy and/or economic reasons has been a regular practice. In a world that still experiences starvation level food shortages in numerous places, this is a disgraceful failure to reform destructive and deadly practices. Of course, this Trump regime takes it a step further by destroying rather than delivering foodstuffs that had been specifically earmarked for imminently starving people, men, women, and children, without batting an eye. The world winks….and that is all.
Once upon a time, the sight of a starving child elicited compassion and a response… now it’s page 10, below the fold…
Duane wrote:
—“Where the hell are the “conservative”,”Bible believing” brethren?”—
They are far more concerned about ‘homosexuality’ than they are about children crying from hunger.
A pox on them all.
“Over centuries, we became very used to equating evil with individual “sins” and we lost a sense of its collective nature. The word “sin” often serves as a label applied to various cultural taboos and expectations, frequently having to do with purity codes. That seems very different from the real evils destroying the world! Of course, moral development and impulse control are important individual disciplines, but the conflation of personal sin with the source of evil is a terrible misunderstanding which has led to tragic consequences. . .
When small, easily forgivable transgressions are labeled “sins” and equated with evil, we trivialize the very real notion of evil and divert our attention from the real thing. Before it becomes personal and shameable, evil is often culturally agreed upon, admired, and deemed necessary.” ~ Richard Rohr
https://cac.org/daily-meditations/evil-is-a-social-reality-what-can-we-do-about-it-2023-05-14/
I hate politics but have to ask a couple of questions, first is why didn’t you point out how this situation has grown?
According to Reuters,
“The food aid stuck in Dubai was fortified wheat biscuits, which are calorie-rich and typically deployed in crisis conditions where people lack cooking facilities, “providing immediate nutrition for a child or adult,” according to the U.N. World Food Programme.”
“But they said the stocks were “purchased as a contingency beyond projections” under the administration of former President Joe Biden, resulting in their expiration.”
The next question is, while the USAID workers had the ability why didn’t they distribute this overstock?
Yes I hate seeing food wasted, but it happens everyday in every Restaurant, grocery store and food warehouse across the USA.
“In the United States, an estimated 30-40% of the food supply is wasted, according to the FDA. This translates to billions of pounds of food annually, with a significant portion ending up in landfills. Grocery stores and restaurants contribute a substantial amount to this waste. ”
Where’s the outrage?
My guess is this is really about the current politics rather than the desire to feed the hungry.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=749125340995645
I found this on Facebook (abc news post) and heard about it on NPR. I guess Epstein is more important now.
This would be an absolutely hysterical TV comedy show if it wasn’t real.
pstrmike,
That is a great quote…truth.
TH,
“My guess is this is really about the current politics rather than the desire to feed the hungry.”
If what you mean by “the current politics” is a systematic destruction of programs worldwide and domestic that act as safety nets for the poor and disadvantaged…you’re right I guess.
If you think it’s simply about left vs.right or Republican vs. Democrat…you obviously are reading only through that lens.
“If you think it’s simply about left vs.right or Republican vs. Democrat…you obviously are reading only through that lens.”
Never implied that at all, please stay on track.
Your statement is why I hate politics.
If one is passionate about feeding the hungry then it shouldn’t matter where the focus of the issue is.
However, you have clearly pointed out with this statement, “a systematic destruction of programs worldwide and domestic that act as safety nets for the poor and disadvantaged…you’re right I guess.”
It is about politics and those, no matter what the party or people group involved, who make the decisions to throw away food. Your focus is clearly on the people and machines making the decisions rather than the desire to feed the hungry.
Is this bad? Only if one is using “feed the hungry” as a banner to actually oust and fight against the people in charge.
Feeding the hungry and stopping the “destruction of programs worldwide and domestic…” two different goals and desires.
One could make the same argument about education, roads, internet infrastructures, freedom of speech, religion, inequality…
Exactly the kind of food aid needed in Gaza: nutrient dense, easily portable, no cooking facilities required — in fact designed for situations such as the the one in Gaza. What makes it impossible to deliver it there is exactly politics as usual, which is the politics of state conducted atrocity, using starvation as a weapon of policy, to achieve state goals. The design of the people making the decisions is intentionally keeping food like this away from those in need, and doing so for political reasons alone. Like the Great Famine.
TH,
Enough with the sophistry.
The world we live in today is so complex and the problems so large that political entities have to make righteous and humane decisions to address the issues.They are the only ones will can procure and distribute food and medicine on the scale necessary.
So…these are not two different goals and desires.
TH
You’re absolutely right that politics is involved—because politics, at its core, is the exercise of power over people. And when that power results in children going hungry while food is incinerated, it must be named, confronted, and judged.
However, the distinction I am making is not that politics is irrelevant, but that for the Christian, our first allegiance is not to political mechanisms or parties, but to the Kingdom of God. My concern is not to shield any group from blame. Quite the opposite—I am holding to account those who wield the machinery of policy and law to crush the poor, no matter what flag they wave.
What I resist is the reduction of Christian ethics to partisanship. The Church does not exist to baptize the decisions of the powerful, but to proclaim a higher standard. If decisions are being made—by Democrats, Republicans, bureaucrats, or corporations—to destroy food rather than feed the hungry, then those decisions are evil. Not unfortunate. Not regrettable. Evil.
The early Christians understood this. They lived in the shadow of empire but refused to be co-opted by it. Their focus was not simply on who ruled, but on what righteousness required. They were willing to die not just for a set of doctrines, but for a way of life that made visible the justice, mercy, and truth of God.
So yes, I am focused on the ones making the decisions. Because Jesus was. He called Herod a fox, He turned over the tables in the temple, and He warned that those who cause the little ones to stumble would fare better tied to a millstone.
The desire to feed the hungry must drive us—but it must also drive us to speak clearly and courageously about those who actively prevent that from happening. If we soften our language for the sake of political comfort, we have ceased to be salt and light.
To feed the hungry is not a vague intention. It is a concrete action—and it is thwarted by very specific people, policies, and priorities.
If that’s politics, then so be it.
But it is politics under judgment.
And it is the Gospel that brings that judgment to bear.
If decisions are being made—by Democrats, Republicans, bureaucrats, or corporations—to destroy food rather than feed the hungry, then those decisions are evil. Not unfortunate. Not regrettable. Evil.”
Yes Evil.
“What I resist is the reduction of Christian ethics to partisanship. The Church does not exist to baptize the decisions of the powerful, but to proclaim a higher standard. If decisions are being made—by Democrats, Republicans, bureaucrats, or corporations—to destroy food rather than feed the hungry, then those decisions are evil. Not unfortunate. Not regrettable. Evil.”
Agree.
The problem Michael is you focus on one side, one party, one man and not the general issue. You make this a partisan issue. It inflames people to think and do evil against others in the name of “feeding the hungry.”
As God said, man is evil from his youth and that includes you and I. When the current generation is gone others will arise to take their place.
What is better, teaching why people need to feed the hungry or burning those who don’t?
Is it better to teach the evil in the “Moses model” or go after those who use it to gain power and abuse others?
It’s your site, “choose wisely.”
TH
You are dealing with Duane, not Michael…
I agree—human sin runs deep, and no one is exempt, least of all me. But the universality of sin is not an excuse for moral silence. When real people make real decisions that harm the poor, Scripture does not call us to generalize. It calls us to name what is unjust.
What you call partisan, I call specific. The prophets named kings. Jesus named Herod. Nathan didn’t lecture about the dangers of royal power—he said, “You are the man.”
This isn’t about burning opponents. It’s about refusing to pretend that the destruction of food while children go hungry is just a matter of political opinion. Teaching truth includes showing what happens when it’s violated.
You’re right that we must choose wisely. So here is my choice: I choose to speak clearly, even when it offends. I choose the Gospel over the applause of any party. I choose the hungry child over the comfortable silence of institutional religion.
That’s not politics. That’s obedience.
TH, On the basis of your position, Christians would never have marched with other civil rights activists to end Jim Crow and support changes ensuring voting rights for all citizens, because to do so inevitably involves one in what could be understood as partisan politics. For that matter, they should never have taken part in the American Revolution for the same reason; after all, the English king was a Christian monarch duly recognized by authoritative governmental tradition. Wouldn’t your argument mean that the American revolutionaries were open to the criticism of doing and thinking evil against the king in the name of advancing liberty?
Here and on Facebook I’ve been lectured about how I should address these issues.
The lecturers never note the starving people or the families torn asunder…they never respond to what I define are Christian mandates…they simply critique my opposition to starvation and the disassembly of families.
I’m too old to engage with those whose consciences are quiet while people die…I will simply say that your God is different than mine and politely suggest you move on to places where the lies are baptized and the cruelty applauded.
That’s the last time I’ll be polite about it.
“The lecturers never note the starving people or the families torn asunder…they never respond to what I define are Christian mandates…they simply critique my opposition to starvation and the disassembly of families.”
You don’t know that to be true at all. The problem with all social media is when people make statements like yours which are hyperbolic and do not contribute nor encourage real discussion. Basically it’s my way or the highway.
I’m getting too old for all this political stuff. Yes, I have taken to the streets and fed the hungry, yes, I have stood up to local “Moses model” pastors, yes, I have stood up immorality within leadership, and so much more over my own decades.
I too am worn out; however I will always be polite about it.
Robert F.
“TH, On the basis of your position, Christians would never have marched with other civil rights activists to end Jim Crow and support changes ensuring voting rights for all citizens, ”
I appreciate your passion but read all of the current political footballs in your statements. As Citizen of the USA I have always voted for the candidates, laws and policies in which my conscience leads me and respect the rights of others to do the same. You know what? I have never had an election where my vote followed the majority 100% or even close to it.
I don’t cry over elections or their results, it is just part of living together in the USA. However, I do cry over relationships, children who never had a chance to live and people in my circle. They are worth every tear.
So you’re not going to respond to what I said, or my question. I can’t do anything other than consider it a reply made in bad faith, and avoidance.
TH,
Another comment, another deflection…and no mention of the ones who will starve or the horrific ramifications of the police state war on brown people.
I don’t need this…it wastes my time and limited energy.
From here on, this is a place for like minded believers to find strength in each other as we stand and speak and hunger and thirst for righteousness.
This is a historical crossroad for both the nation and the church…and if someone scrolls through this site when I’m gone I want them to know I did care and that I tried.
You too should enjoy the fellowship of like minded people…who I hope leave this site to us and move on.