Global Debt: A theological starting point
for a conversation hosted by the Presbyterian Disaster Assistance (Presbyterian Church, USA)
Recently I had the opportunity to join religious leaders in Albany, NY, to support NYS Assemblywoman Pat Fahy who introduced the New York Taxpayer and International Debt Crises Protection Act calling private creditors to participate, in comparable terms, with sovereign debt relief initiatives being developed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund at the behest of the G20 after their Spring meeting this year.
Among the affirmations of the Bill is that 52% of the world’s sovereign bonds are governed under New York State law. The bill would provide the state of New York a framework to have private creditors join the public sector, especially at the national and international level, to provide true debt relief to countries throughout the world. It should be of no surprise to anyone at the reach of my voice that there are countries in every continent of the world whose debt is so large and held for so long that their budgets are prioritized to pay such debt.
As a Puerto Rican, the issue of debt relief and sovereign debt hits home quite hard. In 2016, the US Congress approved the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, ill called la Ley PROMESA. With this act, the United States confirmed the colonial nature of its relationship to the people and government of Puerto Rico. La Junta de Control Fiscal, the Fiscal Control Board, as it is known in Puerto Rico, has prioritized the payment of upwards of $70 billion in structural debt, and by doing so, Puerto Ricans are and will face decades of defunding of the country’s educational, health, safety, and political infrastructures. The Puerto Rico case is not address by the bill introduced in the NYS Assembly because Puerto Rico’s debt is not sovereign, but a colonial one.
And I will be the first one to say that, although debt forgiveness is my hope, debt relief to prioritize the wellbeing, health, and nourishment of the people of the world is, hopefully, a good start. As one who lives and is active in New York’s political and social engagement, I also hope that fellow New Yorkers will understand NYS’ ability to get some significant debt rethinking going at a global scale.
Scripture also speaks to us about debt, and it is central to the Gospel stories. The last few weeks, the Gospel of Luke has encouraged us to engage with a ubiquitous and problematic character of first century, colonized Palestine – the tax collector. Luke 18:9-14 tells the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. The traditional way to interpret the message of this text is embedded in the way verse 14 is translated. In most of our translations, verse 14 states that one man went to his house justified rather than the other. The verse goes on to paraphrase Psalm 138.6 – “for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” In an of itself, the parable interpreted in this way was quite outside of the cultural and social norm of the first century Palestine. You see, tax collectors were fellow Jews whose work not only had them collect money on behalf of a violent colonizing force. That in and of itself made these characters problematic. Because of their position of service to the empire, often encouraging corruption, fraud and debt, they were also considered to be henchmen of the empire.
I recently heard a sermon on this passage where the preacher suggested that the issue with Luke 18:4 is the word we translate to “rather”, in Spanish it is traditionally translated to “antes que” (instead of). The Greek term could also be translated to “besides”, “alongside with”, “junto con”. Although a teaching about being humble personified by a tax collector is already quite jarring for the audience listening to Jesus, it would have been that more revolutionary that not one, but both men would be justified, and not only justified but alongside each other. Think about it – the Pharisee was praying a prayer that simply repeated the generalized sentiment of his compatriots about those who served the empire. The tax collector was praying a prayer wishing he could find forgiveness, even if from God alone and not his compatriots.
What would it be for a Jesus whose motive and means is love, and for the early church who began understanding themselves as vessels of grace and good news, to for a moment consider and be confronted with, both, the cultural narratives of survival we have developed for ourselves while at the same time find it in our being to reconcile our relationships with each other. The Pharisee was not wrong on his prayer. He lacked perspective. The tax collector was not wrong in his prayer, he was serving the empire. The culprit in the parable is neither the Pharisee or the tax collector, but the colonizing force. And because the empire is the guilty party in the parable, both men who sought the face of God through faithful prayer could leave to their homes justified precisely because of the promise of Psalm 138.6 – “For though the Lord is high, he regards the lowly; but the haughty he perceives from far away.” “Porque el Señor es excelso, y atiende al humilde, mas al altivo mira de lejos.”
As we engage in this conversation, I encourage us to keep in mind the basic and fundamental prayer Jesus taught us to pray. In the Matthew version, it is interesting how the request of forgiveness is articulated. “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” And I find it interesting because most any other part of the Lord’s prayer is a request to have an action of God doubled down on the reality of humanity. This part of the prayer, this request, is not based on an a priori action of God. Our debts, that which we owe – to God, to creation, and to our fellow human being – is asked to be forgiven in the same manner we forgive the debts other have on us. Debt is an intentional term. Forgiving debts will free the indebted party to start anew. And forgiveness of debts will also free the creditor from the burden of greed and accountability over the life and livelihood of the holder of the debt.