Abstract
The biblical story of Joseph is a narrative that offers several notable ethics. Of interest in this essay is Joseph’s response to the scarcity created by a regional famine consuming Egypt and Canaan in which Joseph makes slaves of the Egyptians while enriching himself and Pharaoh. The narrative underscores an uncomfortable truth: in the presence of scarcity, horrific acts are likely even among godly characters. The essay offers lessons on how we, as individuals, governments, and religious bodies, can respond to the scarcity that will likely accompany climate change while avoiding actions that either oppress or sanction the oppression of the masses. In addition, the essay delves into how democracy can be an asset in combating scarcity and oppression, insomuch as democracy is a vehicle for a population that is resourced and informed by truth.
One of the great challenges of the twenty-first century will be how to survive on a damaged planet. The Earth is warming. For the first time in recorded human history, humans are facing a global problem that eventually none of us will be able to ignore. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that if the Earth’s human-induced warming reaches above 1.5°C above the pre-industrial era, we will experience significant changes in the way humans live. 1 The IPCC also stated that in order not to reach a human-induced 1.5°C increase, farmland would have to shrink. 2 At the same time, the global population is expected to grow from 7.7 billon people at the start of 2020 to 8.5 billion people by the start of 2030. 3 Together, these challenges mean that in the coming years, the world must feed more people using less space in order to survive. An added insult to this grave injury will be the loss of farmland and fresh water associated with sea level rise, droughts, and a changing landscape.
Unless we ignore the obvious, we must begin preparing for a period of scarcity. The future will be a time where the world is lacking. Presently, it is estimated that one person in seven—or 14 percent of the global population—is hungry. 4 Without grand changes, and perhaps even with grand changes, this number will increase.
Reactions to our current predicament have varied. Some have exacerbated the problem, in favor of economic benefits. Others have ignored it as it seems too large and intractable. Others still are working toward a reasonable solution. Regardless of our category, every individual and institution will have a role to play.
How will we respond to this crisis as individuals and as political geographies? The governmental response is particularly pertinent as governments are a concentration of power, skill, and knowledge, whereas the resources and responsibilities of individuals, relative to governments, are severely limited.
What will the Church’s role be? Where will the Church find its inspiration and general guidance? Will the Church’s response be faithful to the teachings of Christ? Will the response be merely convenient, or will it be imbued with justice and love?
Assuming a just and equitable response is desired, studying the Genesis narrative of Joseph and his response to a great regional famine that engulfed Egypt and Canaan may be particularly helpful. Joseph’s response to the famine is a story where the hero becomes a villain and the downtrodden becomes the oppressor. Joseph is an unlikely villain—a status that many theologians have refuted and many others have simply overlooked. More apparent, and more frequently portrayed throughout the Church, is Joseph’s status as gifted hero and victim. He did after all save the lives of his family, forgive his brothers, and save the lives of the Egyptians. However, Joseph saves lives in a way that oppresses the vast majority of an entire nation and creates a system under which his descendants, and the descendants of his siblings, will suffer for four centuries.
Joseph’s narrative has much to teach us. The narrative does not indicate what the Church must do. Rather, it is a story that details what the Church must guard against. It is a story that illustrates that harmful and destructive responses are possible, that profits and power can be an attractive temptation to the best of us, and that governmental structures that do not properly inform the populous are prone to subjugate them.
This essay is an exploration of scarcity in the life of Joseph found in Genesis chapters 37, and 39 through 47. Through a close examination of Joseph’s life, I will argue that responses to scarcity are learned behaviors, that endowments of divine gifts and appointments do not ensure altruistic motives or outcomes in the presence of scarcity, and that government structures are preludes to governmental responses to scarcity. Ultimately, I will argue that Joseph’s life as a backdrop illuminates scarcity to be a layered phenomenon and provides profound insights as to how we should respond to scarcity as individuals, governments, and a religious body.
Scarcity within Joseph’s early life
Within the early life of Joseph, scarcity plays a critical role. It is a staple in the life of Joseph and his family. One could accurately characterize the life of Joseph and his family as a struggle with scarcity. Joseph’s father Jacob, the second-born of Isaac, struggles from birth with Joseph’s uncle Esau for the blessing and the birthright customarily given to the firstborn. Joseph is born at a time when his father is working off the debt of wedding Joseph’s mother Rachel, the particular woman whom he loves. The scarcity of potential suitors led Jacob’s father-in-law to trick Jacob into first marrying Rachel’s sister, whom he did not love, before ultimately marrying Rachel. These two women, Rachel and her sister Leah, fight for the scarcity of their joint husband’s affection for many years, something Joseph certainly observes. Joseph’s name itself reflects a dissatisfaction with scarcity, as “Joseph” means the prayer, “May the Lord add to me another son!”
By age seventeen, Joseph has not only observed the scarcity of his father’s affection divided between two wives; he also observes his father’s unequal affection divided among twelve children. Scripture describes Joseph’s father’s regard for him with the sentence, “Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his children, because he was the son of his old age” (Gen 37:3). Israel, or Jacob, like his father Isaac before him, loves his children unequally. Joseph, being the recipient of the unmerited limited love of his father, becomes the sole recipient of a long robe with sleeves, or what the King James Version translated as a coat of many colors.
The coat Joseph receives is designed to make Joseph feel special, to denote his uniqueness among a crowd of siblings. The nature of gifts is that they are only fully understood, fully valued, within a community that understands their meaning. The meaning of the Joseph’s gift is not merely that Joseph is special or of greater value than his siblings. The gift is also a marker for Jacob the giver. For Jacob, it symbolizes a special passion for Joseph, a passion that the father wants the others in the family to know is significant. The gift would lose its meaning among those who didn’t know that Joseph’s gift was the only one, or among those who didn’t know Joseph was one of several children. With full knowledge of both facts, the scarcity of the gift and the abundance of siblings, Jacob’s full message embedded within his gift to Joseph emerges: “I have chosen to give my son Joseph the largest share of my limited love.”
Notions of scarcity also abound in the two prophetic dreams of Joseph’s adolescence. The initial dream of seventeen-year-old Joseph depicts his sheaf, or the fruit of his labor, rising and standing upright, while the sheaves, or the fruits of the labor of his brothers, gather around Joseph’s sheaf and bowing down to it. One sheaf stands tall, while the others are bowed. The dream, in addition to being an agricultural prelude to what is to come, suggests that sometime in the future, Joseph will once again receive a grace he didn’t earn, and his brothers will bow down before him. The second dream is similar and is interpreted as his father, a maternal figure, and his brothers all bowed down before him.
Joseph’s dreams are dreams of grandeur and dreams where one individual is granted something not granted to the others. The circumstances surrounding this prophetic dream are not yet known, but the imaginations of the interpreters are focused on who has and does not have this scarce honor. It is beyond the imagination of Joseph and his family that this dream could mean a universal blessing or honoring. In the same way that Jacob fights for his parental blessing and birthright, the problematic understanding that the benefits of scarce blessings are primarily for the recipient is carried forward to the next generation. Perhaps the most harmful aspect of this mindset is that Joseph and his family understand this as coming from God, and they imagine that God desires a person’s gifts to be for that person, and thus they covet the gifts of others, and those who are gifted are primed to share sparingly.
After sharing his dreams with his family, Joseph has several encounters that highlight scarcity. His brothers fake his death and sell him into slavery, illustrating that a focus on the scarce gifts of others is capable of breeding hatred and the performance of horrific deeds. While in Egypt, although a slave, Joseph is described as possessing a unique combination of great looks, success, and having the Lord with him. When Potiphar’s wife solicits Joseph sexually and falsely accuses him of sexual assault after Joseph’s repeated rejections, Joseph learns that scarce gifts are attractive, can garner lustful attention, and can be a danger to the possessor.
The events of Joseph’s early life act as a precursor to his actions once he is more mature. All that has been scarce in Joseph’s life reveals two opposing ideas: what is scarce is the source of intense conflict and what is scarce is highly coveted. What is scarce both endangers and emancipates, having the potential of making the possessor both a target of aggression and the recipient of treasures that would otherwise go unattained. Ellen Davis argues that the Genesis narrative demonstrates that the unique blessings of God require human participation to secure and human sacrifice to maintain. 5 Ideally, the participation and sacrifice would benefit all; this is the indication given when God informs Abraham that his blessing will be for all nations (Gen 22:18). The experiences of Joseph’s life demonstrate that the glory and grime of scarce gifts go to the possessor, and that the possessor of scarce gifts is the victor, and to the victor goes the spoils and the prerogative to spoil whom the victor chooses.
Scarcity within Joseph’s life in prison
While the early life of Joseph taught him that unique gifts had power to open doors for him, Joseph’s time in prison is characterized by Joseph doing something that his past experiences have not taught him—using his gifts liberally and without promise of self-promotion. While unjustly imprisoned in “the place where the king’s prisoners were confined” (Gen 39:20), Joseph carries the status of prisoner. This is the first time in the Joseph narrative where a scarce gift is used in an altruistic manner. Prison, an artificially created sphere of scarcity intended to punish or reform, to constrain and restrict, is where we find a model of scarcity that is beneficial to the larger group. In prison, Joseph uses his scarce gift liberally. Before even knowing that his gift of interpretation will be useful, Joseph demonstrates a willingness to serve when he notices the pain on his fellow prisoner’s faces. Once those fellow prisoners tell Joseph about their dreams, without hesitation Joseph gives them an interpretation that is both true and without condition. Joseph does not charge them nor make an attempt to bargain or barter its usage. In the space of confinement, the exercise of a unique gift is payment enough. Joseph does eventually ask for help from Pharaoh’s cup bearer, but only after all Joseph has to offer is freely given.
When Joseph is finally brought before Pharaoh, he once again is liberal with his gift. Joseph hears Pharaoh’s dream and immediately interprets it, telling Pharaoh of the pending famine preceded by a time of plenty. Joseph even goes beyond interpretation in offering a strategy to help Pharaoh deal with the dream’s interpretation. Joseph requires no pre-conditions, no promise of remuneration or positive retribution for the utilization of his gift. He just uses it, and how Pharaoh responds is up to Pharaoh.
In both instances of liberal giving, with Pharaoh’s servants and with Pharaoh, Joseph attributes his scarce gift to God. With Pharaoh’s servants Joseph says, “Do not interpretations belong to God?” and with Pharaoh Joseph testifies, “It is not I, God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.”
Crediting God as the true owner of the scarce gift that Joseph ultimately exercises is an act of humility, one where Joseph assumes the posture of a servant to God. Joseph affirms his role as simply a conduit of God’s blessings, removing any of his own authority to alter or impede the favorable flow of God, even when it flows to those without a familial connection to God’s covenant. Joseph’s humble posture as God’s servant whose blessings are for the benefit of all only occurs while Joseph’s status in life was humble prisoner. Outside of his prisoner status, Joseph’s posture toward his scarce gifts aligns more closely with the chaotic, hubristic examples of his early life, where those who benefit are limited and the damage is pervasive.
Scarcity in Joseph’s political life
In his time as second in command over Egypt, scarcity becomes the focus of Joseph’s activities. He prepares for scarcity, this time primarily in the form of grain in Egypt. And he does so in the manner of the God-given interpretation. Joseph takes from the abundance of the people to prepare for a time when the people will lack. As such, Joseph begins collecting grain from all over the country of Egypt, which amounts to so much grain that he is unable to accurately keep a record of it. The grain is as “the sand of the sea . . . it was beyond measure” (Gen 41:49). Joseph is able to take, instead of purchase, this food from the Egyptians because he is given the authority of Pharaoh. Joseph wears Pharaoh’s signet ring; he is dressed in fine linen and has a gold chain. Joseph arrives to take from the abundance of the people in the chariot designated for Pharaoh’s second in command, and the people are told to “Bow the knee” as he approaches.
In the role as the second in command over Egypt, Joseph embodies scarcity. While ordained with Pharaoh’s widespread authority and adorned in Pharaoh’s opulence, Joseph is the sole person in a unique position. No one else has the authority to do what Joseph is doing, and no one else has the skill and understanding to pull it off. The unique position of Joseph is intended to be a benefit for the entire nation of Egypt and beyond. Genesis 41 concludes by informing the reader that the famine has extended beyond Egypt to the known world, and the known world is coming to Egypt, coming to Joseph, for grain.
It is important to establish what exactly Egyptians and others are coming to Joseph for and what is given. What Joseph has collected from the Egyptians during the seven years of plenty is grain. When Joseph’s brothers come to him (although the brothers do not know it is Joseph), Joseph gives them grain on two occasions. When Joseph gives grain to his brothers, he gives it to them liberally. Similar to Joseph’s behavior under the status of prisoner, Joseph is not immediately trying to gain from his interaction. Joseph does not take his brothers’ money, and the amount of grain Joseph gives is only limited by the brothers’ ability to carry it back home. The distinction between Joseph’s acts as a prisoner and his acts toward his brothers as a political leader is Joseph’s familial tie with the recipient. Joseph shows mercy and kindness toward his brothers, but they are his family and he also knows his brothers will travel back home to a hungry father whom he loves, and who loves him.
Nonetheless, in giving food to his brothers in the midst of a great famine, Joseph gives as one with abundance. Joseph is not concerned with running out, nor is he concerned with gaining riches through his gift. Joseph gives them the basic unit of survival—grain. Grain is able to be planted, eaten as grain, or processed into bread or something similar. With grain, the recipient has options and the dignity that comes with options.
The Joseph story distinguishes between grain and food processed from grain. This distinction is made in a relatively short passage of the Joseph story that details Joseph’s distribution of food to the Egyptians. Unlike Joseph’s charitable distribution to his brothers, to the Egyptians Joseph’s distribution of food is without empathy; it is shrewd and profitable. Joseph gives the Egyptians the least he can offer while taking all the Egyptians can furnish. The end of the economic relationship between Joseph and the Egyptians is total subjugation of the Egyptians, an end that is calculated and attained through progressive iterations of political oppressive overreach.
When the Egyptians initially come to Joseph, Joseph offers them grain in exchange for money. The famine is so severe, and the Egyptians are happy to pay Joseph for the grain that will allow them to continue to live. Shortly afterward, Joseph has “collected all the money to be found in the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan” (Gen 47:14). Famine has made Joseph very rich. All the riches in Egypt and Canaan are now in the possession of Joseph, which Joseph subsequently places in Pharaoh’s house. With no money, the Egyptians come to Joseph and ask for something other than grain. The Egyptians, being not just hungry but also impoverished, ask for םחֶלֶ֔, or, when translated, bread. Being impoverished and hungry, scarcity is on the forefront on the minds of the Egyptians. It affects the Egyptians so much that they no longer request the basic unit of food, but a finished product of food that has been processed. When they requested grain, the Egyptians held out hope for an end to their predicament. Grain could be planted and multiplied; bread, or processed foods, cannot. The Egyptians have ceased being traders or shoppers—persons who engage in a dignified exchange of valuable assets. Instead, the Egyptians have become beggars—persons who make requests knowing that they have nothing of reciprocal value to offer in exchange—and thus operate with virtually no power.
The Egyptians implore Joseph for food saying, “Give us [bread]! Why should we die before your eyes? For our money is gone” (Gen 47:15). Joseph responds by demanding their livestock, and the Egyptians, having no power, agree. The Egyptians give Joseph their horses, flocks, herds, and donkeys. By the years’ end, Joseph owns all the livestock of the Egyptians, and the Egyptians, having no opportunity to advance their position, soon after need food and Joseph again. Ellen Davis asserts that Israel’s first lesson out of their subsequent Egyptian bondage is that food is an expression of God’s generosity toward humankind. 6 In precisely the reverse of that lesson, food for the Egyptians is perceived as Joseph’s generosity, or perhaps the generosity of Pharaoh, approximating them to the status of deity.
The following year, the Egyptians are in a worse position than they were the year prior. In response, they beg even more desperately. They implore Joseph, “Buy us and our land in exchange for [bread]. We with our land will become slaves to Pharaoh” (Gen 47:19). At this point, the focus of the Egyptians is solely on surviving, as they add, “Shall we die before your eyes?” As the Egyptians become increasingly desperate, having lost more and more dignity at each dealing that highlighted their scarcity, Joseph has become increasingly greedy, having gained more wealth and more power at each encounter. In response, Joseph takes their land and places it under Pharaoh’s ownership and he makes slaves of them. The scripture does not describe their experience as slaves, but it mentions that they are moved from their land into cities.
Cities offer particularly efficient ways to live. City residents tend to live in proximity to the project in which they are employed. In cities, many people can reside near each other, and any services rendered to the population can be done with minimal movement on the behalf of the service provider. In cities, it would be easy for Joseph to distribute bread to the masses of people in need. It would also be easy for the masses to work on whatever project Pharaoh and Joseph wanted them to complete. In more contemporary societies, cities often contain areas called ghettos. Ghettos are places where people reside that are not of their own choosing. At their technical inception in 1516 Italy, they were walled off areas of Venice for Jewish ethnic minorities with strict curfews and dismal living conditions. 7 Within the United States, ghettos were generally built near factories or other places where cheap supplies of labor were needed at the time. 8 Unlike neighborhoods, which are designed for human flourishing and equipped with elements such as parks, gardens, and inspiring aesthetics to make human flourishing likely, ghettos are made for human survival. 9 The intent of a ghetto is to give residences just enough to live while extracting whatever gifts and labor they may have. 10 Neighborhoods are for abundance. Ghettos are for scarcity. If Joseph moved the people from their homes into cities, he moved them into ghettos, into poverty, into usury.
When Joseph decides to send the people back to work the land, which is presumably at the end of the seven-year famine, Pharaoh now owns them and the land on which they go to work. When Joseph sends the Egyptians away from the cities, he reminds them that they are slaves, he gives them seed instead of bread, and he obligates them to give 20 percent of all their future harvest to Pharaoh. This 20 percent obligation of their harvest must have been perpetual, as the writer explains that the pledge was still in place at the time when the story took written form.
There are exceptions to those who become slaves. The first exception is Joseph’s family, who are secure in the land of Goshen living off the supplies that Joseph provides. The other exception is the religious figures of Egypt. Like Joseph’s family, the priests receive a special supply, this time at the behest of Pharaoh himself. Surely, both Joseph’s family and the religious figures of Egypt see what is taking place. If there are any complaints among them, they are not significant enough for the Biblical writers to take note. These characters are on the positive side of scarcity, the side that is aware but not negatively affected. Those on the positive side of scarcity are kept safe from the most harmful effects of oppression, and perhaps they even gain power as they, in opposite fashion from the masses, enter into elitism.
Joseph and his family become elites in Egypt. They forget about Canaan and fail to return to Canaan even when they know the famine is over, and they can safely expect the land to provide for them as it formally had. In Egypt, Joseph’s family gains many possessions; they are fruitful and they multiply. They benefit from the work of Joseph and his position relative to Pharaoh. Jacob and the entirety of Jacob’s family had not come to Egypt until the second year of the famine. At most, they should have stayed in Egypt for five years before returning home. However, scripture relates that “Jacob lived in the land of Egypt for seventeen years” (Gen 47:28). The Children of Jacob live there longer and are prosperous, fruitful, and elite. They live in the best portion of the land. All is well until there arises a Pharaoh who “knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). This Pharaoh does to Joseph’s family what Joseph has done to countless families in Egypt—he makes slaves of them. The system of slavery under which Joseph’s family suffer is so developed and intense that it will take four hundred years and a series of Divine miracles to set them free.
Lessons on scarcity gleaned from the Joseph narrative
Layers of scarcity
The scarce resource highlighted in the political activities of the Joseph narrative is food, but food is not the only limited commodity. Along with food, knowledge and power are also scarce. Only a select few know that there will be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. And even fewer have power to plan adequately for it. What would have happened if the masses of Egyptians had known of a pending famine? Perhaps they would have been better prepared, and less desperate. The first disparity of the Egyptians is their lack of knowledge. Not knowing leads to a lack of preparation, which results in a lack of food to survive what was already forecasted. The disparities of the Egyptians are layered, which makes them entirely vulnerable.
On the other side, it is the knowledge of Joseph and Pharaoh that allows them to prepare, and puts them into a position to exploit. When the gifts of Joseph are combined with the power of Pharaoh, the result is advantageous for them, but devastating for the Egyptians. Once the famine begins, it is the combination of the scarcity of food, knowledge, and power that makes Joseph an unchecked force. Only Pharaoh can challenge him, and Joseph’s management decisions increase Pharaoh’s wealth, making a complaint from Pharaoh unlikely. As Lord Acton expressed to Bishop Creighton in the late nineteenth century, “absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” 11 Joseph is a great man, a wonderful example of godly discipline and stewardship in the midst of immense trials. Joseph is a witness that having plenty while others have little does not engender just acts or a spirit of philanthropy. Instead, plenty in the presence of scarcity creates a condition where the wiles of one’s imagination can go unchecked, and the desire to prosper can dominate other impulses, even when those impulses start with God.
It is important to note that Joseph’s political policy decisions are not the interpretation of the vision. The interpretation of the vision is constrained to knowledge of durations of plenty and famine, and an imperative to gather and store seed in preparation. Thus, in the first seven years as political authority, Joseph diligently carries out his God-inspired interpretation. God’s interpretation of the dream does not extend to the details of conduct during the eighth through fourteenth years. Joseph could have chosen any number of methods to distribute the food. He could have educated the Egyptians, as he educated his family, on the length of the famine (Gen 45:6). He could have given the Egyptians seed the entire seven years, or if necessary, bread during some portion of the seven years. Joseph is not required to sell the grain. Joseph sells what he neither planted, harvested, or purchased. He simply collects it, free of charge. Joseph chooses to sell the grain, thereby electing to use scarcity as an opportunity for self-enrichment. What begins as divine and salvific suddenly turns deviant.
Scarcity turns motives. It sets the stage for opportunists. Joseph is not born corrupt, nor is it likely that he wants to be corrupt. His early life has taught him that what is scarce is self-enriching. His time in prison has taught him to use scarce gifts liberally. When Joseph takes political action, he chooses to be liberal with family and self-enriching with those outside of family. Despite giving God the credit for the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream, and giving God the credit for preserving his life and raising his stature so that other lives could be preserved, Joseph’s political decisions, exercised through preferential treatment of family and authority figures, ultimately reveal a primary allegiance to self. Self-centered acts, particularly when neither countervailing forces nor checks and balances are present, are human nature, even human nature with knowledge and reverence of God.
Power, including power caused by scarcity or layered disparities, is tempting. The opportunity to gain is attractive, and the suffering of the masses is not an effective deterrent; gaining can override notions of personal responsibility and moral ethics. Joseph has knowledge, power, and political backing. The masses do not. Joseph loves himself and his family; he does not love the Egyptians. The suffering Egyptians are peripheral, lying outside the sphere of genuine concern. The suffering Egyptians become like Joseph when he himself was sold into slavery, loud but unheard. The combination of what Joseph has amassed, and the opportunity that it provides, is louder than the voices of compassion that may have suggested a different path. Joseph has become powerful, and the powerful have few critics.
Joseph’s power was centered in his layered advantage. The root of the advantage was God’s presence in his life and the gifts that accompanied God’s presence. This advantage was combined with reliable insights into unpredictable future occurrences, and Pharaoh’s authority and favor. This dynamic provided Joseph with the freedom of imagination when making decisions, albeit his decisions turned out to be detrimental for the masses. Those without power had less options, and the way they exercised what they had could be the difference between life and death. This phenomenon, in part, may help explain the bizarre celebratory response from the oppressed Egyptians.
Avoiding oppressive acts
Avoiding oppressive acts is not as easy as checking the expressions of those who are being oppressed. In Joseph’s Egypt, those who are oppressed still have their priorities, and survival is on the top of the list. At times, survival can require giving flattery and unworthy praise to the very cause of suffering. Under certain conditions, praising the oppressor may be the best means for the oppressed to survive.
The interactionist perspective in the social sciences suggests that people make meanings of things as they witness or experience interactions. 12 Applying this principle to the self, Charles Cooley develops the theory of the looking-glass self, arguing that people see themselves through their interactions with power structures. 13 Cooley’s research demonstrates that negative interactions with power structures are mirrored by negative self-perceptions and positive interactions with power structures are mirrored by positive self-perceptions. 14 In the case of Joseph’s story, the Egyptians who are made to bow their knees at his presence may have come to see him as a god-type figure and themselves as people of inferior worth. In other words, their oppression would have likely been internalized and activated both wittingly and involuntarily during interactions. Having to beg Joseph for food and experiencing involuntary movement into ghettos only reinforce their notions of self-inferiority, and the evidence of oppression should be expected in their speech.
In the face of what seems like certain death, people can praise anything that allows death to be escaped, even if only momentarily. Oppression can overwhelm the will to thrive and fight, subjugating it to the will to survive an immediate danger. Thus, the sentiments expressed by the oppressed in a given moment cannot always be taken as a full expression of their feelings or mindset, nor should they be taken as a gauge of right or wrong.
Likewise, oppressive acts will not be avoided by listening to those who benefit from the oppression. Oppression in the face of scarcity must be, and perhaps can only be, countered by the golden rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The golden rule as a litmus test could have prompted Joseph to be more creative in his distribution. It may have led him to be more generous and less abrasive. Failing to thoughtfully consider others and how he would like to be treated in a similar circumstance leads Joseph to benefit greatly during and far beyond the austere years of famine. Eventually his lack of consideration is returned by a Pharaoh who similarly lacks consideration of his offspring.
Of course, citing the golden rule is overly simplistic and individualistic. The acts of Joseph and the oppression of the Egyptians do not result from one man’s failings. They are the result of a governmental system that makes possible the type of abuses enacted. Pharaoh is not the governor or president of Egypt. Every encounter with Pharaoh in Genesis gives the sense that he is a ruler with unmatched and unchecked authority. Those under his rule live and die by his judgment and whims (Gen 40:21–22). Democracy offers an alternative to monarchial rule. In addition to checks and balances, and limits on the powers of authority figures, democracy invites the masses to participate. However, the quality of the masses’ participation within democracies is dependent on their access to pertinent information, and the fidelity and quality of that information’s presentation.
Amartya Sen, Nobel prize winner in economic sciences, believes that democracies are our best hope against famines. He writes, “No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy,” implying that democracy and famine can never co-exist. 15 In Sen’s estimation, part of the protection that democracies offer is the need for officials to be re-elected and the potential for open political criticism. Critics of Sen note that in 2003 roughly 350 million of India’s one billion population slept hungry every night while fifty tons of grain sat in Indian food repositories. 16 Sen’s rebuttal is that there may have been hunger widespread and “many, many deaths” related to hunger, but actual famine had not taken place. 17 The thin line between famine and many, many deaths caused by widespread hunger is perhaps a distinction without a difference. Still, Sen’s point may be true: that democracies may be countries’ best defense against avoidable internal famines.
Neglected altogether from Sen’s theory is the potential for democracies to create famines in other geographies. In 1974, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture stated that “food is a weapon,” intending for food to be understood as a leveraging tool in foreign relations, one that, if necessary, could be used to deadly ends. 18 As such, the threat of famine was imposed by the world’s leading democracy. Furthermore, substantial areas throughout the United States have experienced hunger and starvation, particularly in parts of Mississippi in the 1960s. 19 In the twenty-first century, 35.2 million Americans, many in urban areas, live in areas without adequate access to healthy foods. 20
The absence of food is a marker for the presence of oppression. The layered scarcity of the Joseph narrative indicates that oppression exists within disparities of knowledge, power, and resources. One group is knowledgeable and possesses adequate resources to ponder options for favorable outcomes, while another group is ignorant and without the necessary resources to ponder favorable outcomes. If democracy will be part of the solution to pending food crises, those democracies must be transparent, with informed and resourced citizens. Without this combination, democracy will fail to live up to its potential and produce similar outcomes to monarchy, that is, outcomes that only favor the gentry and oppress those not counted among its number.
A great challenge to a resourced and informed citizenry is that as global democracies become increasingly resourced, they are increasingly overwhelmed with competing claims of truth. As Richard Lischer writes, “The first casualty of the information age is truth” 21 . Our current age is one where deep convictions come from radio hosts and pundits intended to be entertainment, and serious consideration of facts can be viewed as unnecessary, or even worse, partisan. Such fractionalization and reliance on misinformation will mute the pronouncement of truth and nullify the virtues embedded within democracy. A citizenry, and its corresponding political system, where truth is optional and unsubstantiated claims are highly regarded, is inherently ignorant and has removed the safeguards against oppression.
Likewise, division, be it partisan or ethnic, weakens democratic impact. The people of Egypt in Genesis are divided into classes of nobility and peasantry. The nobles fare well while the peasants suffer. Despite providing all the surplus that Joseph has amassed, the peasants are viewed as expendable. Democracies must not make this same mistake. To avoid oppression, democracies should be increasingly inclusive, expanding its notion of who is included, who is important, and who is worthy of dignity.
The Church must prepare
The quest for a more inclusive, more truthful, more resourced citizenry and democracy may perhaps be the Church’s most important terrestrial contribution in preparation for scarcity. In Joseph’s Egypt, the religious class is among the privileged and thereby among those with compromised integrity. Walter Bruggemann characterizes Joseph as an “accommodator to Pharaoh’s acquisitive policies” and an “imperial agent.” 22 Bruggemann argues that Joseph is balancing a deep religious identity with his practical commitment to the politics of the empire. 23 The accommodating, balanced religion of Joseph appears successful in the moment, but unwittingly sets up his offspring for four hundred years of anguish and bondage.
The Church should not repeat the mistakes of Joseph. The Church must not be balanced but decided. Any practicality entertained must grow out of a deep conviction to authenticity. The Church must not identify itself with economic classes, with power, nobility, or political groups. The Church must interact and dialogue with all groups and classes, but must fall short of committing or aligning wholly to such identities. To do so is in some measure to submit to those identities. The Church must be uncompromised by only submitting to its religious convictions. The Church must be a witness on Earth to values poured down from Heaven. Grace, humble dialogue, dispersing power and resources, elevating truth, honest and open critiques, fair judgments, celebrating righteousness, and shunning oppression are values to which the Church can call society, and when necessary, critique society. Most importantly, the Church must demonstrate the possibility of their practice. And whatever solutions the Church endorses, it must be solutions where the Church is happy to have its children serve on the lowest rung; so if fortunes change like it did for Israel, the Church’s children and no children are left oppressed.
When choosing democratic leaders, the Church’s voice will be particularly important. The Church must advocate for leaders of conscious, leaders who have demonstrated the types of values that build up democracies rather than tear them down. The Church must advocate for lovers of truth. The leaders needed in preparing for the coming effects of climate change, or dealing with the scarcity that will accompany its wake, are not likely to have a grand change of heart because of the enormity of the evidence or circumstances. We can expect the leaders, for the most part, to be who they have been. Stress doesn’t generally spawn creativity; it most often hampers it. Leaders need to be chosen who have demonstrated a capacity to change, give up power, and live modestly.
Specifically considering the pressing ecological crises, the Church must educate itself on climate change and the associated issues. The Church must know the expected impacts and how, if possible, the worst of the impacts can be avoided. Scripture must be read and Spiritual discernment sought for appropriate actions, insights, and ways of thinking about the dilemma. Prayers must be uttered for guidance, for courage, for grace, and for results. The Church must understand how such practices as conferences, congregations, and individuals contribute to the warming of our planet, and how they can improve the prognosis. Knowledge of climate change and its impacts must become central knowledge. It cannot be an interest group, or an activity carried out by auxiliaries within the Church. It must be discussed often, preached, and theologized; it must be mainstream. For when the effects of climate change cause scarcity in food and resources, scarcity will be mainstream. It will impact all, and thus all must be informed.
Knowledge and discernment must be followed by strong strategies and a willingness to pay the associated costs. Planning for scarcity will be expensive, as will utilizing fewer fossil fuels. A choice to run church buildings and individual homes using renewable energies will increase costs. Utilizing energy-efficient appliances, installing solar panels, and installing geothermal heating and cooling systems are all ways to decrease our carbon footprint with costs that can be a deterrent. The Church must be willing to pay these costs. The strategies employed must also be adequate. Joseph would be considered foolish if he had only collected grain during a portion of the years of plenty. To survive the famine, Joseph had to be fully prepared, which meant collecting grain during the entire duration of the plenty. Only this would be adequate. Strategies employed by the church to curb climate change and deal with its impact must prepare us fully. It will not be enough for the Church to respond by planting community gardens on small plots of land only. Farms will be needed. The solutions will need to be grander, more imaginative, and potentially expensive.
Conclusion
As our planet warms and this generation and the generation to come deal with the substantial challenges unearthed, the life of Joseph is a reminder of the oppression that is likely, and perhaps even natural. If it is to be avoided, intentional efforts must be employed. The Church must be the Church authentic, and she must aid the world in being cooperative, inclusive, disciplined, and truthful. The Church herself must be aided by deep meditations on narratives like Joseph’s while praying that we are fortunate enough to have our sleep disturbed and the meaning of those disturbances laid bare.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
1
IPCC, “Summary for Policymakers.” in Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, ed. Masson-Delmotte V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (Geneva: World Meteorological Organization, 2018).
2
IPCC, “Summary for Policymakers.”
3
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, “World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights”. ST/ESA/SER.A/423.
4
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019: Safeguarding Against Economic Slowdowns and Downturns (Rome: FAO, 2019).
5
Ellen F. Davis, Opening Israel’s Scriptures (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).
6
Ellen F. Davis, Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 73.
7
8
Scott, A. J., “Industrialization and Urbanization: A Geographical Agenda,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76, no.1 (1986), 25–37.
9
Congress for the New Urbanism and US Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Principles for Inner-City Neighborhood Design: Creating Communities of Opportunity” (2000).
10
Scott, A. J., “Industrialization and Urbanization.”
11
Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887, published in Historical Essays and Studies, ed. J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1907).
12
Cooley, C. H., “Looking-Glass Self,” in The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction, ed. Jodi O’Brien (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 2017), 126–28.
13
Cooley, “Looking-Glass Self.”
14
Cooley, “Looking-Glass Self.”
15
Amartya Sen, Democracy as Freedom (New York: Anchor, 1999).
18
Peter Wallensteen, “Scarce Goods as Political Weapons: The Case of Food.” Journal of Peace Research 13 no. 4 (1976), 281. doi:10.1177/002234337601300402. S2CID 109255177.
19
20
Alana Rhone, Michele Ver Ploeg, Chris Dicken, Ryan Williams, and Vince Breneman, Low-Income and Low-Supermarket-Access Census Tracts, 2010-2015, EIB-165 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, January 2017).
22
Walter Brueggemann, An introduction to the Old Testament: The canon and Christian imagination (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 49.
23
Bruggemann, Introduction.