“Do Not Lay Your Hand on the Boy"

Proper 8, Year A

Genesis 22:1-18


This is an enormously complicated and difficult and even painful passage. It has been the subject of contentious debated since forever, perhaps from the first time that anyone passed it down from one generation to the next. In terms of preaching and teaching, there are usually three fairly consistent popular interpretations of it.

First is the one on its face. Abraham is tempted by God to see how faithful he would be. To see if he would be willing to sacrifice everything, including his own son and the promise of descendant blessings in order to obey God. This is the one most commonly used by preachers. Brueggemann stresses this point in his Interpretation: Genesis commentary. William Willimon followed this thinking in an old 2002 Pulpit Resource article.

The second is that the story was constructed by the Elohist writer to help combat the child sacrifice of his time. Child sacrifice was found in Judah during the time in which the Elohist was writing (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6 (“He made his son pass through fire”); 23:10 (“He defiled Tophethso that no one would make a son or a daughter pass through fire as an offering to Molech); Jer. 19:4,5 (“Because the people havefilled this place with the blood of the innocent, 5 and gone on building the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree,…6 Therefore…”). The so-called “Covenant Code” allows for the first born child to be “given” to the deity just as the first born animal was given. Cf. Exodus 22:29-30,
“You shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. 30You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.”
So the theory was that the Abraham and Isaac story was written to help overcome child sacrifices in ancient Israel during the divided monarchy, when “E” was writing. And it’s true that subsequent ancient legislation contained clauses which provided for the replacement of a potential child sacrifice with an animal (such as a “ram”).

See for example, Exodus 13:13-16:
“But every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a sheep; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. Every firstborn male among your children you shall redeem. 14When in the future your child asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ you shall answer, ‘By strength of hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from human firstborn to the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD every male that first opens the womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem.16It shall serve as a sign on your hand and as an emblem on your forehead that by strength of hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt.”
“So, it is possible that the E story, in which Abraham, the father of the people, with whom the descendants feel corporate responsibility, was meant to dramatize the deity’s demand for the substitutionary practice, and was one of the factors which brought about cultic reform and the abandonment of human sacrifice. The biblical prophets and the laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus expressly forbid this practice, but that fact also implies strongly that it continued to occur. In fact, the story of Abraham’s “sacrifice” of Isaac suggests that Abraham was familiar with human sacrifice. He knew how to do it, and he was not surprised by Yahweh’s demand.” [a]
The third interpretation is that Abraham knew all the time that God was just testing him and there was really nothing particularly scary about the story. He was going along with it because he knew that God would never make him actually do it. The story of “faith” in this version is that he had enough faith in God to know that God wouldn’t actually do it (or, better, allow Abraham to do it). I personally think this is bunk. It’s demeaning and detracts from the pain the author or the real life participants went through in the story. However, I have, and I’m sure everyone has, heard a sermon on this text using this theme.
A fourth possibility is from Michael Lerner, which repeats some ancient thinking of the rabbis on the story. In it Abraham is internally torn because of things that had happened to him by his father in his own youth and he was repeating down to his child the habits and demonic voices of that pain. “The real task,” says Lerner, following this interpretation, “was for him to be able to separate out the voices within him and discern the voice of the one true God from the gods of the pain and destruction of his childhood.”
What follows is the gist of my sermon, based roughly on Lerner’s theory, but I’m not altogether happy with it.



SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
The story is basically from the Elohist, though there is some confusion over the use of the name YHWH (Yahweh) at vv. 11, 14, and 16. Some believe that vv. 14-18 are insertions from the hand of the Yahwist. But that doesn’t explain the first use of YHWH at v. 11, where the angel of the lord comes to Abraham again and tells him not to sacrifice Isaac. The insertions appear purposeful, and appear to make a statement. My guess is that it probably has to do with the primacy of Yahwist religion over Elohist religion. Exactly what is the key question of the passage.

Michael Lerner, in “Cruelty Is Not Destiny: Abraham and the Psychodynamics of Childhood” (Tikkun, n.d., p. 33 ff.) argues that Abraham is a man wracked with conflict over abuses in his own childhood, stories of which Lerner finds in early Rabbinic midrash on this passage. Abraham, according to the stories, grew up as a monotheist in a typically polytheistic society. His father was a maker of idols for the culture, and Abraham early on realized how useless they were for helping crops or love lives. In a very revealing story, once Abraham’s father went away for a while and left Abraham to sell the idols by himself. “A man came and wished to buy one. ‘How old are you”’ Abraham asked him. ‘Fifty years,’ was the reply. ‘Woe to such a man!’ he exclaimed, ‘you are fifty years old and would worship a day-old-object!’ At this the man became ashamed and departed.” (p. 33). According to the story, these exchanges continued, and finally the father, who made his living supporting these idols, turned Abraham over to the king, who tortured him to make him believe in the idols, and threw him into a fiery furnace. Abraham does not die from the occasion, but he comes out scarred both externally, and internally. His internal burns are probably deeper and more dangerous than his external ones. He never again lives in his father’s house, and eventually, when his father dies, he leaves the country altogether and travels north to Canaan becoming a wandering nomad. The root definition of the word ivri, which we translate as “Hebrew,” is one who crosses boundaries, who is rootless. It is to this troubled, boundary crossing, contradictory, sometimes violent, unhealed monotheist that God finally comes and chooses as the beginning of his new religion.


In the Abraham and Isaac story then, according to this interpretation, Abraham is a victim of “repetition compulsion,” a Freudian term which means he is repeating on his son the same horror he experienced by his father (remember “Corporate personality”? We pass it all down to our kids). The Rabbis theorized that the first message that Abraham receives in v. 1, is from Elohim, the many raging internal gods which tell him that he has done despicable things in the way he has treated Hagar, his wife, his child Ishmael, and deserves not to have the blessing of God, and now the best way to get out of the pain is to destroy the promise, to kill the child of laughter. He, Abraham, is a child of violence, and unable to deal with the world without violence, and now in his despair and misery with his life, he resorts to end everything with violence. The voice he hears from the beginning is the voice of the pain of his childhood which he projected into the voice of God, telling him to do to his own son what was done to him. As he was thrown into the fire, so he will pass the pain on to his own beloved. “Take your son, your only son, the one whom you love, Isaac, and offer him in burnt offering.…”


All of us do this. We act out of the fundamental traumas of our childhood. There is something about doing the things that were done to us as kids that somehow makes us think we can master them, or have control over them. In childhood events in which we were powerless or victimized, we attempt right ourselves as adults by repeating the sin on someone else. (“The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” [Jeremiah 31:29]). We pass down or pain to our offspring as a prize f their inheritance. Then they despise us for it and pass it down to their offspring. All but a few of us hated something in our parents. And all but a few of us who have children have something in us that we have blotted them with that came from our childhoods and which they hate within us. We should put our wounds in our wills, for that is the largest thing that people inherit from us.
Whoever inserted “Yahweh” as the speaker in the second message, v. 11, intended it to be a different voice than the first. Lerner, following the Rabbis, believes that it was intended to represent a word that is truly from God. The task (“test”?) of Abraham was not that he was willing to take his son Isaac to a mountain and sacrifice him to God. The real task was for him to be able to separate out the voices within him and discern the voice of the one true God from the gods of the pain and destruction of his childhood. To separate out the voices of the gods of humiliation, and defeat, and abuse, and unlove, and to hear instead the voice of the God of the Covenant and the gift and the laughter, and the God who gives sight and vision to see the resources what will rescue us. the greatness of Abraham is not that he was tough enough to obey a God’s command to kill his own son; the greatness of Abraham is that he didn’t go through with it! “At that very last moment, Abraham hears the true voice of God, the voice that says, ‘Don’t send your hand onto the youth and don’t make any blemish.’” (Lerner) Don’t do it, God says, you don’t have to do it. You do not have to hurt others to get over your own hurts. You do not have to damage others to get over your own buried sense of damage.
The distinction of the voices is that the first one is plural, “the gods.” The many voices that Paul speaks of that torture us with threats and challenges. The second is YHWH, the one voice, the one God. The God who says the chain of pain can be broken, who the God of the redemption and liberation of Israel from Egypt.
Note that Jews read this story every year at Rosh Ha Shanah, the traditional time of atonement. It is the time when that which has been in our lives does not ultimately and completely have to bind us, limit us, make us less than we could be and should be. If Abraham can transcend the voices of his childhood, the ceremony says, then so can we.

Genesis 22:1-18

After these things[2] God[3] tested[4] Abraham.[5] He said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”[6] 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love,[7] and go to the land of Moriah,[8] and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.”[9]
3 So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and set out and went to the place in the distance that God had shown him. 4On the third day Abraham looked up and saw[10] the place far away. 5 Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there;[11] we will worship, and then we will come back to you.” 6Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. 7Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” He said, “The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”[12] 8Abraham said, “God himself will provide[13] the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So the two of them walked on together.
9 When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill[14] his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord[15] called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”[16] 12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” 13 And Abraham looked up and saw[17] a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place “The Lord will provide”[18]; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”[19]
15 The angel of the Lord[20] called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”[21] 19So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer-sheba;[22] and Abraham lived at Beer-sheba.





[a]Victor harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
[2] “After these things”: A conventional opening to a new section, meaning sometime afterwards. See also 15:1; 22:20; 39:7; 40:1.
[3] “God” (’elohim ) Plural of 'elowahh, deity in general, or the Deity. In the ordinary sense it means “gods,” but usually used (when plural) of God.
[4] “Test” (נסה nâsâh) verb, to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test (BDB Dictionary). “Testing, however, does not always suggest tempting or enticing someone to sin, as when the Queen of Sheba tested Solomon’s wisdom (1Ki. 10:1; 2Ch. 9:1); and Daniel’s physical appearance was tested after a ten-day vegetarian diet (Dan. 1:12, Dan. 1:14)….can refer to the testing of equipment, such as swords or armor (1Sa. 17:39)” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary).
“In most contexts nasa has the idea of testing or proving the quality of someone or something, often through adversity or hardship. The rendering ‘tempt’generally means prove, test, put to the test, rather than the current English idea of “entice to do wrong.” In a number of passages nasa means to attempt to do something. It is used of attempting or venturing a word which might offend the hearer (Job. 4:2), of venturing to touch one’s foot to the ground (Deu. 28:56), and of trying to take a nation (Israel) from another nation (Egypt) (Deu. 4:34)….The largest number of references, however, deal with situations where a person or a nation is undergoing a trial or difficult time brought about by another. Though man is forbidden to put God to the test (Deu. 6:16), the OT records that he did so. The wilderness place of Massah (“trial”) becomes a byword in this regard, often combined in a play on words with nasa, “to try” (Exo. 17:2, Exo. 17:7; Deu. 6:16; Deu. 33:8; Psa. 95:8, Psa. 95:9; cf. Deu. 9:22). Those who put God to the proof in the wilderness would not see Canaan (Num. 14:22-23). The hymns of Israel reflect this defiant attitude (see Psa. 78:18, Psa. 78:41, Psa. 78:56; Psa. 106:14)” (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament).
[5] “God tested Abraham”: Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, God tests the people Israel: see Exodus 15:26; 16:4; Deuteronomy 8:2, 16; 13:3; 33:8.
[6] “Here I am”: Often used to indicate readiness and availability with respect to God’s command. See also 31:11 (Jacob); 46:2 (Jacob); Exodus 3:4 (Moses); 1 Samuel 3:8 (Samuel). Used here three times, vv. 7 and 11. Especially interesting is v. 7, where Abraham says the words in response to being addressed by Isaac.
[7] “Whom you love.” This is the first time that love is ever mentioned at all in the Bible.
[8] Moriah (mountain) Traditional (but unlikely) site of Solomon's Temple at Jerusalem, on the threshing floor of Araunah. Cf. 2 Chronicles 3:1 “Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to his father David, at the place that David had designated, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.” However, the image of Abraham sacrificing on Moriah Mountain was seen as a prototype to the Moriah temple and Isaac’s “sacrifice” was seen as the foundation of the sacrificial system. There is a substitutionary nature to sacrifice. As later in the Passover, a ram is slaughtered in place of a son (cf. Exo. 12), and over the centuries the blood of bulls and goats is added to the blood of the ram slain for Isaac. In the latter days, Jesus is the Passover sacrificed for us. Adapted from “Blogging toward Sunday,” Peter J. Leithart, Theolog (http://www.theolog.org/blog/2008/06/blogging-towa-3.html#more).
[9] “Go to the land of Moriahon one of the mountains that I shall show you.” Evidence of a redaction: Moriah is the name of a mountain, not a region. You can’t go a particular mountain and then wait for God to tell you which mountain to go to. The name “Moriah” was probably added to tie the story to the founding of the Temple Moriah in Jerusalem, to imply that Abraham was the founder of that temple. But he clearly was not.
[10] Saw, yi’reh, a prim. root; “to see,” lit. or fig. Also, “provide,” “cause to (let) show (self).” The first of a series of plays on the word yi’reh, which continues the complex wordplay on “seeing,” which has been prominent throughout the Abrahamic stories, 16:13-14; 21:9. Seeing and providing are closely linked linguistically in Hebrew, and especially theologically in these passages. See especially below on 22:8, and 14.
[11] “Over there.” The IB notes that in accordance with Hebrew Scripture usage, if they were really going to Mount Moriah, then Abraham would not have said that we will “go over there,” but that we will “go up.” Another indication that Moriah was a redaction to the earlier story.
[12] The first and last conversation between Isaac and Abraham.
[13] Godwill provide, ’elohim, yi’reh, same word as used in v. 4. Means in this case, “God will see to it” or God will make it visible.” Haslam suggests that the phrase may intend irony as in “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering - my son.”
[14] “Kill” (ָשַׁחט šāḥaṭ). Verb, to slaughter, to kill, to offer, to slay. Haslam says that “The Hebrew word is a technical term used specifically to describe animal sacrifice.”
[15]Lord (yhwh, Yahweh). Note the change from Elohim to Yahweh. Some believe that it was inserted by the redactor to make a distinction between two gods. Others say it is two different understandings of the one God, or it is the merging together of writings by two authors (Elohist and Yahwist). If it is two writers, then vv. 14-18 are probably from the Yahwist, because they relate naming the place using Yahweh’s name. But that doesn’t explain v. 11, where Yahweh first appears. It is fairly clear that a redactor stuck it there for a reason. What the reason was, is the question. See below on Michael Lerner, who relates rabbinic Midrash that said it was two voices within Abraham’s head. The good God and the bad God.
[16] “Here I am” (ִ×”ֵï­€×” hinnēh) Behold, or look. Continuing the theme of sight underneath this passage. “An interjection meaning behold, look, now; if. It is used often and expresses strong feelings, surprise, hope, expectation, certainty, thus giving vividness depending on its surrounding context. Its main meanings can only be summarized briefly here: It stresses a following word referring to persons or things (Gen. 12:19; Gen. 15:17; Gen. 18:9). It is used to answer, with the first person suffix attached, when one is called (Gen. 22:1, Gen. 22:7).” (Complete word Study Dictionary)
[17] Saw a ram, yi’reh. Perhaps, “had provided for him a ram.”
[18] The Lord will provide, Yahweh yir’eh, literally, “Yahweh will see to it.”
[19] On the mount of the Lordprovided, yhwhyi’reh. Either, “The mountain where Yahweh will provide (a ram)” or “where Yahweh can be seen.” Either is possible.
[20] “The angel of the Lord.” For the angel’s role in story of the flight of Ishmael and Hagar, see 21:17-19. The J writer typically has God speak directly to humans. The E writer usually speaks through angels.
[21] God has made promises to Abraham six times: see 12:2-3, 7; 13:14-17; 15; 17; 18. Now the angel repeats for the seventh and climatic time (12:2-3, 7; 13:14-17; 15; 17; 18) the great promises in their most generous form. For the first time, Abraham is blessed because he has heeded God’s command. [NJBC]
[22] Beersheba. “This important city, often identified as the southern limit of Israel’s territory (Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20), is traditionally located in the northern Negev at Tell es-Seba’ (three miles east of the modern city). Its name derives from its association with the wells dug to provide water for the people and flocks in this area (see Gen 26:23–33) (Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).

STATISTICAL TID BIT FOR THE MONTH:


  • 96% of Americans believe that the 140 people who give 60% of ALL campaign contributions is destructive to democracy.
  • 91 % of Americans believe that changing that will never happen. There's nothing we can do about it. It's over. Democracy has ended. We lost. [1]

That's probably true, but very depressing.

And not unrelated to those two statistics, 80 percent of all conservatives in America think that poor people "have it easy." Too, easy and should be punished for their lavish lifestyles[2]

Would you like to get un-depressed and join one of the most important, and most hopeful organizations in
America that is struggling to take corruption (and yes, they use that term) out of Congress?

It's Larry Lessig, a terribly unassuming Patent attorney who has gotten terribly frightened about the drain on American democracy and is trying to rally the 96% back into faith that we can do it. Click here for his blog.

And here, for a nice interview with him after his ted Talk on the subject

And here to buy a copy of his book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It.



[1] http://blog.ted.com/2014/01/24/larry-lessig-completes-185-mile-walk-across-new-hampshire/
[2] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118427/pew-survey-conservatives-think-poor-people-have-it-easy

Jubilee, Argentina, and the Supreme Court


Hi Everyone,

I need your help. Jubilee USA is a plaintiff in a case before the Supreme Court this month having to do with some old debts of Argentina going back for decades. And they want religious and mission and justice groups to sign-on as co-supporters of the brief.

Here is the issue. You know that way back in the 1970s dozens of poor and developing countries borrowed way more than they could afford. Many of them did it because they were run by dictators or authoritarian militaries who stole the money and then retired to the French Riviera (or similar places). Some of them, like Costa Rica, tried to use the money wisely, but in the early 1980s the economy went to hell and the interest on their loans went through the roof. So, whether they were moral or immoral, around sixty countries collapsed economically. That’s the origins of the great debt crisis that spawned the Jubilee movement. Ever since then, we have been trying to arrange deals to get them out from underneath those debts that were literally eating up the incomes of so many countries.

In many cases, we have been able to do a version of what happens to you and me when we get behind and go to a debt arrangement service. That is, they say “my client can pay you a certain amount on the dollar for the old debt, or you can continue trying to get more than they can afford and wind up getting nothing.” In most cases the creditor agrees and all parties are happy.

The case in point today is Argentina, whose debts were stacked up during authoritarian military dictatorships that borrowed and squandered billions of dollars back in the 70s and 80s. They were finally thrown out in the late 1980s, and the new democratically elected government was left to pick up the tab. (They had to pay for all of the weapons that their previous government had purchased to shoot them with, which left a bad taste in their mouths.) Argentina is a middle income country, so they managed for a while, but when the recession of 2000 came, they were hit hard and offered their creditors the cents-on-the-dollar arrangement I mentioned above. The creditors took the deal and it was signed and done and everyone was happy.

However, bizarrely, later on a couple of investment firms bought up those old dead loans which for some reason were for sale on the international market, and they took Argentina to court, suing them for back payments. And they won their cases against Argentina all the way up to the US Supreme Court today. If they win this one, it means that Argentina will have to pay off all of the old dictators’ bills plus interest, which is billions of dollars. The importance of this is that if a middle-income country can be sued for debts it thought it had already cleared from the books, then poor countries all over the world will be vulnerable to the same kinds of law suits. It’s hard to overstate the kind of devastation this could wreak upon the world. The magazine, The Economist has called this the “Trial of the Century” because of the good it can do if we win and the damage it can do if we lose.

So, all I am asking is that our little group agree to be to sign onto the “amicus brief” in support of Argentina in this case. It won’t mean a whole lot, but they say that if the Supreme Court sees dozens of organizations supporting a case it carries a little bit of weight in their decision. And every little bit helps.

So, let me know. This is a long note (but it’s a long subject), so once you read through all of this, send me a quick note back as soon as you can with your vote.

Incidentally, I’ve included a copy of the letter from our attorneys to the Supreme Court about the case; it isn’t much, but it’s interesting to see how they do these things.

Thanks,

Stan
Victor and Hugo:

Life and Faith and the Price of Coffee

Stan G. Duncan

For several years I used to travel each summer to Guatemala with a big red-haired farmer in my congregation named Hugo. He sponsored children through World Vision and took me along to translate for him. One of his kids was named Elvia and she lived high up the Ipala volcano in the Chiquimula province, just this side of the Honduran border. Elvia lived in a dirt floor, one-room home on a wide spot next to the road with her two parents, three siblings and their families and their three children, and two neighbor children. Her older brothers and families live with them because no one can afford to live on their own; the neighbor kids live with them because their parents died in an accident and Elvia’s family took them in.
Our first visit was lovely. Her father, Victor, stayed home to greet us and Hugo gave out toys and clothes to the kids. We noticed, however, that a new baby, born to Elvia’s older sister looked frail and thin. She had a greenish tint to her skin and never smiled. “Bad water,” Victor told us. “And not enough medicines.”
Victor and his family are desperately poor. I asked him one time about the coffee farm he works on and he gestured far across the valley and up another mountain. I was amazed. “How far is that?” I asked. He laughed and shook his head. He didn’t know, but it had to be a three to four-hour walk. “Every day?” I asked. He laughed again. Of course it was. Why was I so foolish as to ask?
Coffee is a huge portion of Guatemala’s economy. It accounts for 12% of Guatemala’s entire national income and constitutes 30-35% of its exports. More than 12% of Guatemala’s workers are employed in the industry. Around the world coffee is the most frequently traded commodity in the world after oil. It is handled by half a billion people and consumed by more people than drive cars. In recent years it has become a cash cow for specialty shops like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts. In the early nineties, however, prices paid to local coffee farmers turned steadily downward and are now at what some estimate to be a one-hundred-year low. It was a catastrophe for farmers but meant little to consumers. The price of our coffee never even went up with inflation.
The next year, Hugo and I returned to Guatemala and again trekked up the volcano to see Elvia and her family. During the year Hugo had arranged to send crates of chickens to the family. “For protein,” he had said. “Half are ‘layers’ and half are ‘fryers.’ So they can eat some and get eggs from the others.”
When we arrived, however, we found that all the chickens were gone. A disease had come through. The children had gotten sick and the chickens died. The little baby was still ill. Though her mother cradled her in her arms and sang to her silently, the baby stared vacantly into the distance. Her hair was still thin and yellow.
I asked Victor what had happened. He said he didn’t know. A development organization had given them medicine and they took it but it was gone and the baby is still very sick. “Can you afford any on your own?” I asked him.
”No,” he said. “We don’t have the money for the medicines. Last year the foreman paid me less than he paid me the year before. And this year less than last.”
“Why is that?”
He shook his head. He didn’t know.
”What will you do?” I asked.
He smiled, but he did not laugh. “I will work harder.”
Victor is not wrong about his declining pay. In 2001 farmers around Chiquimula were earning 25 quetzales ($6.00) per day but now they earn between 10 and 15 quetzales ($2.50 to $4.00), which is not enough to survive on. The World Bank estimates that between thirty to sixty million coffee farmers around the world lost their livelihoods because of the crisis. Major coffee regions are in tatters. In Colombia, famous for Juan Valdez commercials, coffee has fallen from first to fourth in its exports, and the federation that produced the commercials is bankrupt. In Ethiopia, the historic birthplace of coffee, coffee has shrunk from 70 percent of its export earnings to 30 percent.
And the “collateral” damage is enormous. Some coffee workers move to the cities to seek jobs in sweat shops so that North Americans can buy ten-dollar shirts. Some flee their country seeking a better life, often dying along the way. Remember the twenty-four Mexicans found suffocated in a boxcar in Iowa a few years ago? More than half were out-of-work coffee farmers.
Others manage to stay on their lands by growing illegal crops. In Colombia, it’s coca and poppies. In Africa, it’s Khat, an amphetamine-type drug that is illegal in the US and many European countries. It earns about $9 a bushel while coffee brings about $.01. If your family were hungry, what would you do?
Still others have turned their plowshares into swords and joined revolutionary movements. In Chiapas, Mexico, the Zapatista rebels evolved as a direct protest against the state-sponsored reduction in prices paid to coffee farmers. In Colombia, thousands joined the leftist rebels and right wing paramilitaries when farmers lost their incomes. In addition country income itself suffers. In Ethiopia the drop in coffee prices has cost the country $1.12 billion in lost export revenue in the past five years alone. That money could have built thousands of health centers or schools. And the crisis has set back much of the progress achieved by debt-reduction activists in recent years. Ethiopia spent years under the belt-tightening rules of the IMF in order to qualify for $58 million in debt cancellation in 2001. Yet in the same period it lost almost twice that amount from the decline in coffee revenues.
On our way home, Hugo fretted over how to do more to help his kids. “I can send more money,” he said. “I can set up a trust, so that whatever happens to me they’ll get help.” Hugo looked as strong as a bear, but his hips and right thigh were slowly being eaten up with cancer and he knew that one day he would no longer be able to make the journey up into Chiquimula. I tried to walk him through what I knew about the causes of the global crisis and its effects on people like Victor and his family, most of which Hugo could not help with trusts and more gifts. But in the end he said he didn’t know anything about that. That was just politics, he said, and he didn’t get involved with politics.
The causes of the coffee crisis are legion and have more to do with human sin than “laws” of economics. From the sixties through the eighties there was an International Coffee Agreement that kept coffee prices at a relatively stable price, and most farmers, while poor, at least made a living. The U.S. supported the agreement because it kept poor people in Latin America from getting so hungry that they would consider Cuba a role model and overthrow their oppressive governments. But after the fall of the Soviet Union, the geopolitical need to feed poor people declined, so we changed policy. We pulled out of the agreement (effectively killing it) and almost overnight, new producers jumped into the market and prices paid to local farmers began declining.
It seems to be an almost-intentional policy among wealthy countries, and lending institutions like the World Bank, to keep production high and prices low. It is the basis of the reigning model of economic globalization. During the nineties the IMF and other regional banks made hundreds of loans to develop coffee plantations but with each new coffee farm, more coffee was produced, which drove down prices and drove down farmer incomes.
A dramatic example of this was in the early 1990s when the IMF arranged massive loans by regional banks to help bring Vietnam into the global coffee market. In less than a decade Vietnam moved from being a tiny producer to number two. That so increased the glut of coffee on the market that soon nobody, not even Vietnam, was making money. By 2000, the Vietnamese government was burning hundreds of thousands of hectares of coffee to help drive prices back up—but it was too late. In addition to overproduction, Vietnam also suffered ecologically. During the 1990s, over 400,000 people rushed to the Dak Lak province to plant what they called the “dollar tree.” Hundreds of thousands of hectares of ancestral forests were cut down and intensive irrigation led to soil erosion and water shortages. Natural rivers ran dry and underground water levels dropped. When drought struck in 1998, 200 reservoirs dried up and water supplies were drained. And 90% of families in Dak Lak did not have access to sufficient water.
Corporations can also contribute to the damage. For example, in the late 1990s, Nestlé, the world’s largest coffee buyer, told its Mexican clients that it was moving to Vietnam where labor was cheaper, so Vietnam increased production by 55,000 tons. But Mexico offered to lower prices paid to coffee growers, so Nestlé purchased only 4,500 tones of Vietnam’s coffee and otherwise remained in Mexico. So, Mexican farmers lost because of a cut in prices and Vietnamese farmers lost because of over production and Nestlé made a killing.
In the summer of 2003 I took my last trip to Guatemala with Hugo. His doctor said the cancer was growing and didn’t recommend he make the trip. But Hugo had to go. He had his idea for a trust and wanted to tell the family. We took several others from the church with us on that trip, and it was a good thing because he was in a lot of pain, and more than once we had to help him in or out of the truck or down a hill. It was hard, but he was tough, and we managed to make the painful drive one last time up into the mountains so he could see his kids. They knew him well by this time and they all poured out to see him. He was in tears, but he was happy.
I saw Victor again standing by himself away from the crowd, and I asked how his coffee farming was going. He smiled but looked ahead at Hugo playing with the children, including their frail little girl who looked better now, but still not well. Too much damage had occurred at too early an age for her to ever be truly healthy. “Mister Hugo loves our children,” he said. “And he wants to help us. But we can no longer farm here and we are going away.”
”Where?” I asked.
”There are many of us. We cannot farm here and feed our families. We will ride on the bus to the city where there are jobs in the factories. They hire men who are strong and work hard.”
I looked at him with dismay. He looked old and weary. He would never be hired in a factory. What would happen is that his sons would take care of him, and he would be humiliated.
”We cannot feed our families here anymore,” he said.
On the way home I told Hugo about my conversation with Victor and he grew silent. Finally he said, “That Victor’s a good man. He’s a hard worker and doesn’t deserve this.” Hugo had a lot of respect for Victor and it was a shame that they never got to know each other well because neither could speak the other’s language. As two old farmers with big families and big hearts they would have had a lot to talk about.
”I’ve got to send more money,” he said.
”I don’t think that would help,” I said. “Every year they make less than the year before. You can’t just pay for their whole lives.”
”But they can’t just lose everything.” His face tensed for a moment, like someone in pain, and he rubbed his thigh. “Tell me again about that fair trade thing.”
Fair trade coffee is actually just one of many ways that people can help farmers in Victor’s situation. Oxfam, for example, has promoted a package of proposals under a “Coffee Rescue Plan,” such as getting roasters to pay higher wages and reducing the stock of existing coffee. Another campaign worked for years to get the U.S. to rejoin the International Coffee Organization so that its influence could be used to reinstate something like the old coffee price stabilization agreement. The U.S. did rejoin the organization in 2004, but so far has refused to agree to any coffee revitalization program that is not conditioned on laissez faire, free-market principles.
However, the fair trade movement remains the most accessible way for most people to feel they are having a direct impact on the crisis, as well as learning more about it. In a fair trade arrangement, a coffee company will partner directly with farmer co-ops in developing countries, which eliminates the “middle people,” and in so doing guarantees a stable living wage. In addition, to be certified the cooperative must do such things as promote democratic principles of governance, gender equality, humane working conditions, and environmental sustainability.
The oldest fair trade company in America is Equal Exchange in Massachusetts. They began back in the eighties and they also have an interfaith program that is a major part of the company. They form partnerships with faith groups and congregations, who in turn sell and promote fair trade products.
By winter Hugo was sick in bed often and by summer he was too frail to make the trip back to Guatemala. Then, in the early winter, when his church was preparing its annual pageant to welcome the birth of the son of God and prince of peace, Hugo died. He never found a way to solve all the problems for the family he learned to love so much up on a volcano in Chiquimula.
Not long after that our church signed up to join with Equal Exchange to begin selling Fair Trade products. We put up a big display in the parish hall, ordered a bunch of their coffee, chocolate, and teas, and have been selling them on Sundays ever since. I doubt that our little project will ever help Victor and his family in Chiquimula, who finally had to move away and lost everything they ever had. But I’m certain we’ve helped other people like them. And I’m certain that somehow in the mystery of pain and love and life and death, that Hugo knows about our little coffee display out in the parish hall, and wherever he is, I think he’s glad.














Reprinted from Sojourner’s magazine, September, 2005