The biblical roots of Bankruptcy

When I was studying US history in grade school, I learned about something they called “civil religion,” a sort of nondenominational generic Protestantism, mostly, that melded Church and State, set the Flag and the Bible side-by-side, and seemed to have patriotism as its main doctrinal tenet. The way it was represented in those days, it was kind of an innocuous way of publicly acknowledging God without giving offense (even allowing, generally, for the inclusion of Jews and Catholics). In later years I have learned that this phenomenon remains alive and well, but is often now more closely associated with a somewhat belligerent version of “Christianity” than it is with the generic, nonspecific religion embodied in the carefully-worded daily prayers offered by, say, the Chaplain of the United States Senate. In this belligerent, sectarian, in-your-face version of civil religion, several things seem to be taken as articles of faith:

  • * Patriotism remains paramount.
  • * America is both the Chosen People and the Promised Land (I think this is referred to fondly as “American Exceptionalism” by the intellectual conservative elite).
  • * Capitalism is presumed to be the only, indisputable, God-ordained economic system.
  • * Accordingly, Private Property is Sacred.
  • * The Bible, while it of course mostly supports all these things, is more concerned with teaching us right beliefs about personal (that is, sexual) morality. It gives no guidance to business or government except where it touches on these matters.
  • * A more recent corollary seems to be that Christianity , which is to say, this American religion, is in competition with other world-views and other religions; and this competition, like the economic and military competition which this religion embraces, is a contest for dominance in the arenas of law, government, public discourse, and resources.

My problem with all of this, of course, is that I actually read the Bible, and profess a faith that has to do with Jesus Christ. The Bible I read actually includes a history of a people, a nation, and a lot of material about what is required of a nation that follows God; how it ought to govern itself. There’s quite a bit of material about economics, and about the uses and abuses of power, both political and economic power. There’s a great deal about how a nation is to treat its poor, its powerless, and its neighbors; about whether private property is indeed an absolute value (it is not).

And Christianity is about following, not just admiring, Jesus, and doing what he does: loving the world God made, and the people within it, serving (not being served), preferring to suffer rather than inflict suffering, sacrificing self for the sake of those God loves. Paul talks about wanting to share His suffering; adherents of modern popular religion often seem to have a different kind of ambition.

So today I want to focus on just one little thing, to illustrate how far we’ve come from biblical principles. Let’s talk about private property.

The story of a people escaping oppression and receiving a good land, driving out its inhabitants before them, and obtaining an inheritance for each of the families of the new people being established: this could be the story of the conquest of Canaan, but it is also the way the story of the conquest of North America has often been told.

So let’s go with that, for the moment, flawed parallel though it may be. What was the relationship of the people to the land?

First of all, the entire land belonged to God: “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” Pious, empty-sounding religious words? No, an economic principle: All land, and its produce, belong to God. No property is private. It was God who made sure each family had an inheritance on it. In acknowledgement of this, they were called upon to offer tithes. Not only that, they were forbidden to fence off their lands, and were not allowed to go over their fields a second time after harvesting, and the same was true of the grape vines: “you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: for you were aliens in Egypt.”

That’s right. Poor people and foreigners were expected to trespass on the homesteads of farmers after the harvest and pick up whatever was left over (the “gleanings”) after the harvest, for their own use, and no one was allowed to prevent them from doing this. The reason? The earth (the land) is the Lord’s.

A touching example of this practice is recorded in the book of Ruth. Ruth, a foreigner, an alien, a Moabite woman (whose people were under a curse to the tenth generation) collected grain on the property of a wealthy landowner, Boaz. This Ruth, by the way, became the great-grandmother of David. David was thus of mixed ancestry, and according to the strictest readings of the law (“No Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord, unto the tenth generation”), neither he nor his son Solomon nor some generations beyond that should have been eligible for citizenship, let alone leadership of his country….. but I digress. Let’s get back to a foreign woman trespassing on private property to take some of the produce that had been grown there.

How would that go over in our version of the promised land? Do those advocating a return to the Bible press for this kind of economic reform?

Next came the matter of debt, and here the rule was very simple: All debts were to be forgiven every seven years. Period.

Many years and much watering down later, we now begrudgingly allow some debts to be released, maybe once in a person’s lifetime, if and only if they accept a blot on their economic record that lasts at least seven years. And I am willing to bet that a lot of “Bible-believing” Christians are pretty sure that anyone who takes advantage of this provision is a victim of his or her own moral failure, and ought to be ashamed.

Now, along with requiring all creditors to release the obligations of all debtors once every seven years, without exception, the biblical law also expressly prohibited the accumulation of extreme wealth: “Woe to those who add house to house, and field to field!” Christian America, are you listening? To implement this, there was a provision that once every fifty years (seven periods of seven) any family who had sold their own homestead to pay off debts would have that property returned to them, free and clear. This was expressly to prevent the accumulation of wealth by some at the cost of the permanent impoverishment of others.

Me, I’m just reading my Bible. And all I want to ask is: does the popular religion that passes for Christianity in America really have anything to do with Jesus, the Bible, or Moses?

Before you rush at me with an answer, go read the Bible. I did. Cover to cover, and again, and again. Paying special attention to the words of Jesus. Oh, by the way, his take on economics? Let me quote a few sayings (words of Jesus in red, because, well, it’s the Son of God speaking and it ought to stand out):

Give to him who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who would borrow from you.

Give, and it shall be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, shall be poured into your lap.

Freely you have received, freely give.

Sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; then come and follow me.

You will always have the poor with you, and you can help them any time you want to.

[on whether to pay taxes to an unjust, unrepresentative, oppressive government] Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar; and to God what belongs to God.


5 thoughts on “The biblical roots of Bankruptcy

  1. Of course the RW always responds to these Biblical quotes by saying “nowhere does it say that the GUMMINT and MY TAX MONEY should pay for these things …” That’s always their out. And I know you’ve already addressed *that* in a blog post …

    1. Gary North appears to do some of the same selective reading of the Bible that he claims the “socialists” do; only he chooses different passages. Here’s an example.

      He says, among many other things, in his entry on taxation:

      “What about the income tax? Is it biblical? The principle” that civil government should tax income was honored by Egypt under the Pharaoh (20% — a tyranny: Gen. 47) and Israel’s kings (10% — a tyranny: I Sam. 8:14, 17). There is no other mention of the income tax in the Bible. Conclusion: tyrannical governments prefer to tax income.”

      Fortunately, I recently had to respond to a similar claim regarding Genesis 47 when it showed up in my e-mail inbox in one of those endlessly forwarded anti-everything-Obama messages. Here’s what I said:

      This is a good example of how a small text from the Bible can be “spun” in a certain direction. But consider this:

      This story really begins in Genesis 41. That passage should also be read, to give proper context to the verses cited from Genesis 47.

      Genesis 41 tells how God gave Pharaoh a series of prophetic dreams; how Joseph was brought from prison to interpret those dreams. Genesis 41:16, 41:25 and 41:28 let us know (by a threefold repetition) that Joseph’s ability to give Pharaoh an answer about his dream came from God. As part of that answer he proposed a plan to Pharaoh in light of the upcoming abundance and subsequent famine which God had revealed to Pharaoh.

      This proposed plan said that someone should be appointed to tax all produce at 20% during the years of plenty, thus providing enough to provide for the people during the lean years. Hence all of those government actions described below were undertaken on the advice of a man to whom God had given wisdom, and who as a result was appointed by Pharaoh to administer this plan. The long term result of this God-ordained plan, which was administered not by Pharaoh but by Joseph, was an established policy institutionalizing that 20% tax which had worked so effectively (47:24). This entire matter is the first instance in the Bible of a political ruler receiving and following detailed instructions from God about how to run his country. By following God’s instruction in this way, the severity of the famine was mitigated and people in Egypt and elsewhere had food, who otherwise would have faced starvation. Was the saving of that many lives worth the political hazard the preacher focuses on in chapter 47? Is it right or honest, given this full context, to say that when God clearly provided for their needs by means of a government, the people “turned to government rather than God?”

      Pharaoh’s role in this entire process was very simple: in a time of crisis, he sought out a man of God, listened to him and implemented his advice. The positive effect of that could be “spun” (I guess it just was) just as one-sidedly as the attached [email] spins it negatively. The Bible actually records both the good and the bad. But I suggest that it might be unwise to draw any direct analogy with contemporary political figures or their policies.

  2. I would only add to the above that the real Biblical economic principle at work in the Genesis story of taxation in Egypt reflects a Godly goal, as articulated by Joseph to his brothers: “to preserve many people alive.” (Genesis 50:20). I would submit that it is life, not property or its acquisition, that is near to the heart of the God of the Bible; and that godly economics will be designed with this end in view: “to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s