Not a proposal but something to ponder in the current global economy
The current readings from the Hebrew Scriptures suggested by the Revised Common Lectionary are the story of Joseph, son of Jacob, sold by his brothers into Egypt. There he interprets Pharaoh’s dreams predicting seven years of plenty to be followed by seven years of famine. If nothing else, many of us remember from our children’s Sunday school days how Pharaoh puts Joseph in charge of saving up in the years of plenty to provide during the years of famine. Two years into the years of famine his brothers come to buy grain in Egypt, and Joseph provides for his whole family in Goshen.
What we do not usually pay as much attention to are the policies Joseph instituted to accomplish this. Neither Republicans nor Democrats, not the United States nor the Euro Zone would dare propose such policies today. During the seven years of plenty, under Joseph’s administration, all production was taxed (confiscated) at 20% and stored in Pharaoh’s (government) warehouses. When the seven years of famine came, Joseph sold what had been collected by taxation back to those from whom it had come in the first place. First they paid money until it was gone; then they titled their livestock to Pharaoh until none was left in private ownership; then Joseph bought all of the private land for Pharaoh. (Genesis 47:14, 16, 20) He even enslaved the people so they, too, belonged to Pharaoh (Genesis 47:18, 21) and imposed a permanent 20% tax on all they would produce in the future, not unlike sharecropping. In essence, Joseph collectivized all of Egypt.
I am not suggesting the Joseph story as an endorsement for any of the political positions being debated in the current economic crisis. Nor am I proposing copying Joseph’s policies. Twenty-first century democracies are vastly different than Hyksos era Egypt. But I do think the Joseph story raises important issues that are relevant today. First is leadership. Who are today’s Josephs who will propose something bold if difficult that will rally people of diverse if not adverse opinions to work together? Second is community. How can those who so fiercely protect their own interests be persuaded to set them aside for the greater common good?
I cannot help but be somewhat amused at the ironic twist of a well loved biblical story, the specifics of which would be roundly shunned by those in today’s political environment who seem most likely to call for a return to Judeo-Christian values (Bible, religion, etc.). They would celebrate Joseph’s spiritual insight and systematic thrift during the years of plenty, even as they would reject a government program of taxation and reselling. They might agree with government support of religion (the land of the Egyptian priests was exempt and they were supported directly by Pharaoh – Genesis 47:22), but object to having this go to a pagan state religion. I’m sure Joseph knew that the gods of Egypt were not the God who enabled Joseph to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams (Genesis 41:16), yet he allows them a favored status.
I would welcome a spontaneous, widespread spiritual, Christian revival with real engagement with the Bible, with prayer and with corporate worship. However, I don’t see that government has any role in that, though I do believe government is responsible for just economic well-being for the whole national and even global human community. I believe that specifically Christian spiritual health is the responsibility of the churches, not a general social consensus. When claiming faith in Christ sets those who follow Jesus apart from their secular or otherwise non-Christian neighbors, that faith will be stronger. Authentic faith in Christ must be chosen not coerced or diluted by secular government or social consensus.
