A Model for Christian Charity: Summary and Analysis
- Rubin
- Aug 16, 2022
- 13 min read
Updated: Aug 26, 2023
INTRODUCTION
John Winthrop is noteworthy for his influence on political discourse in the US. Even though many do not know his name, his vision for Christian witness and political mobilization resonated throughout the centuries. Today, his lasting vision of their colony being a “city on a hill” is cited as an ideal and used rhetorically to frame US geopolitics. For some, a passing reference to a singular quote of Winthrop may not seem important, but to others, as events have unfolded with prominent right-wing politicians unabashedly calling themselves Christian Nationalists and the events of Jan 6th, this rhetoric is extremely relevant.
Winthrop was an early settler and Puritan. He also became governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and was instrumental in the establishment of Boston. His sermon entitled “A Model of Christian Charity” is frequently cited as the source for or as a representative belief of the new communities leaving persecution in Europe and arriving to the New World. This sermon was intended to help prepare the new settlers for a new life in a new place. He orated this in 1630, either aboard the Arbella or before their departure.
The American founding myth is in some respects tied to Winthrop. North American readers might firstly think of the Mayflower landing at Plymouth Rock or perhaps associate the founding mythos with the Revolutionary War and subsequent leaders. But Winthrop and the early colonists represented an enduring ideal that later politicians utilized and exploited. Presidents such as Kennedy[1], Reagan[2], George W. Bush after 9/11[3], and at the time, senator Obama[4] have all referenced this idea in some way or another, and these are just a few!
Often, when this is rhetoric is deployed, it is used to paint a picture of the potential of America’s greatness. The ethical, economic, and strength of the US is all mixed together in a way that presents a model to emulate as well to generate pride in the America’s past. The “city on a hill” stands as a fixture of US politics. Yet, what goes unsaid is the toll of such power and the problematic ways in which politics can leverage religious language like this as a means to political ends.
SUMMARY OF SERMON
Winthrop opens his sermon with a statement about the condition of man. He begins, “GOD ALMIGHTY in His most holy and wise providence, hath so disposed of the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in submission.” He addresses the issue of why people end up in different socio-economic positions, some end of poor, some rich. He then offers up three reasons why this is the case. The first being that God’s glory is revealed through the differences within humanity. The ordering of society reflects how God has designed the rest of the world. This leads him to posit his second reason that the Holy Spirit is more prone to work and labor within that spectrum of diversity, which also reveals God’s work. Thirdly, life is structured in this way so that humanity can rely on one another. The diversity of class, status, and gifting allows us to rely on one another for our needs and thus, expressing the glory of the whole.
Winthrop then pivots to two major rules by which to live by in relationship with one another, that is by justice and mercy. These virtues should guide our interactions with one another. Corresponding to these two rules is the double law of nature and grace (he also calls these the laws of the moral and of the gospel). These laws require us to help and assist each other. This law requires two things, firstly, to help another in need, and secondly, requires us to follow the golden rule of doing to others what you wish done to you.
There are differences between the two laws of nature and grace. The law of nature was given to humanity in its pre-fallen state and unites humanity in a condition of friendship. But the law of grace or the Gospel demands something further, to love our enemies. The law of the Gospel also motivates us to discern the seasons and time and allows us to engage Christian charity in different ways. There is a time where we might give away all our goods, and at another, to give beyond our immediate means. Lastly, there are scenarios when believers might need to express mercy in giving, lending, and forgiving debts.
The next section of the sermon delves into considerations of giving and lending practices. The first question he presents: “What rule shall a man observe in giving in respect of the measure?” This question has to do with what rule one should abide by when giving to others. In answering this, he oscillates back and forth between answers and objections. He attempts to grapple with balancing liberal giving and wise saving practices. In essence, he argues that saving up can prepare people to be ready when needs arise in the community, saying, “All these teach us that the Lord looks that when He is pleased to call for His right in any thing we have, our own interest we have must stand aside till His turn be served.” The overarching logic of Winthrop here is that the communal needs outweigh the individual. He ends this section by quoting 1 John 3:17, then states, “If thy brother be in want and thou canst help him, thou needst not make doubt of what thou shouldst do; if thou lovest God thou must help him.”
The next question has to do with lending practices. He asks: “What rule must we observe in lending?” His answer is that if someone does not have the means to pay back the loan, then the loaner should give according to the need, rather than what is requested. After outlining other scenarios, he emphasizes that one should preference the community over oneself and should place the community's needs above their own. He presents another question: “What rule must we observe in forgiving?” If someone cannot pay, then the debt must be forgiven. He then continues to his final question in this section in which he asks: “What rule must we observe and walk by in cause of community of peril?” Again, his question is framed by the community. He answers with reference to specific examples in the Bible and of recent Puritan history. He cites the early church giving to those in need, Nehemiah directing the people to act generously toward each other, and other biblical texts to say that it is imperative they preference the community over themselves.
Winthrop then shifts to a section on love. He offers up a biblical definition of love as “Love is the bond of perfection.” Love is the bond or ligament to the body of Christ, and it makes the work perfect. It does so because it binds all the constituent parts together into a whole. Each separate part or work is different in proportion and scope, but love draws these segments together. He then draws several conclusions based on this understanding of love. Firstly, “true Christians are of one body in Christ.” Secondly, “the ligaments of this body which knit together are love.” Thirdly, “no body can be perfect which wants its proper ligament.” Fourthly, all the parts of this body being thus united are made so contiguous in a special relation…” And fifthly, “This sensitivity and sympathy of each other’s conditions will necessarily infuse into each part a native desire and endeavor, to strengthen, defend, preserve and comfort the other.”
There are of course, biblical patterns to observe and follow, Christ being the first and primary example. The fallen martyrs, apostles, and history of the church offer more examples of this kind of radical sacrifice. This love initially existed in Adam but is now perfected and sustained through Christ. Loving each other is possible because Christians resemble one another in the Spirit. This is akin to David’s love for Jonathan because they were of the same spirit and “…so soon as he discovered the same spirit in David had presently his heart knit to him by this ligament of love; so that it is said he loved him as his own soul…” He ends this section with four conclusions. Firstly, “this love among Christians is a real thing, not imaginary.” Secondly, “this love is an absolutely necessary to the being of the body of Christ, as the sinews and other ligaments of the natural body are to the being of that body.” Thirdly, “this love is a divine, spiritual, nature; free, active, strong, courageous, permanent; undervaluing all things beneath its proper object and of all the graces, this makes us nearer to resemble the virtues of our heavenly father.” And fourthly, “it rests in the love and welfare of its beloved.”
After this he goes into application. To live respectfully with both religious and civil authorities, to live with the motivation of improving their lives which is a way to serve God, and to be ambitious for serving God, in other words, to aim high. He then comments on the religious and civil spheres of authorities coexisting. These spheres coexist because they do so by mutual consent. He argues that the care and concern for the public must outweigh concerns of the private sector, and that, “For it is a true rule that particular estates cannot subsist in the ruin of the public.” It seems at least in this short bit that Winthrop understands these spheres to be separate but aligned to pursue the same interests, that of the public.
He stresses that the Lord will not tolerate deviating from this agenda. Firstly,
in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.
In this point, he is making a direct comparison to their identity and Israel. This new community is charged with following the Lord and not transgressing his orders.
Another reason is that God expects “his people” to carry out his special commission, like when God gave Saul a commission to eradicate Amalek. Here, he states,
Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission. Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.
This is important because it conceptualizes what Winthrop believes about their community and their relationship to God. This furthers the point that this new community, in however Winthrop envisions it, is to be faithful to the directives of the Lord, exactly how Israel was charged to do.
To avoid these failings is to exemplify the ethics of love toward one another and to be knit together as one. They must be willing to give to those in need and offer up their gifts and endeavors toward the singular vision of the community at large. In doing so, they can expect God to dwell in their midst and bless them. God will help them be victorious against their enemies, and so much so other colonies will say “may the Lord make it like that of New England.” It is at this place where he delivers his well-known remarks,
For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.
After this he ends with a sober warning that if they turn away, they will incur the wrath of God.
OBSERVATIONS:
Like Winthrop, I will enumerate my observations below:
(1) The demands of selfless giving expected of new community of settlers is simply astounding. It is meant to reflect the early church in Acts 2:42–47, where a new community is established and where this kind of generosity reveals God’s care for his people. This kind of internalized care is also expected to be a witness to God’s provision and love. Winthrop frequently references the early church’s economic practices, advocating for radical generosity and even expects that there are times when people ought to give up their possessions for others. This is surprising considering the ways in which Winthrop is typically utilized in political discourse. To give up one’s possessions for the sake of others is extremely difficult. The overarching ideal of this sermon is that the church is a community that should be prioritized over the individual. Often, we hear sermons more interested in an individual response to a magical confession that the audience members recite rather than to real embodied commitment to each other. But again and again, Winthrop positions the community over against the individual.
(2) He repeatedly frames ethics in terms of the dominating virtue of love and refers to examples in the Gospels. There is also profound elaboration on love as the bond of peace. He poetically expounds on the idea that love is the dominating force compelling the new community to interact with one another. In this sense, Winthrop’s focus continues to be on the community. He goes on to elaborate on the value of love and how to enact it within and outside the community, while citing several biblical examples to make his case. His focused attention on love occupies much of the middle part of his sermon. When hearing and reading the “city on a hill” refracted through contemporary political discourse, one gets the impression that the whole of the sermon is dedicated to this idea. But this simply is not the case. Most of it reads like someone who cares more about the spiritual health of the community than the power or societal construction of the new colonies.
(3) Interestingly, Winthrop does not spend a lot of time unpacking his conception of what their community is as a political entity in covenant to God. I see much of what is behind his sermon as assumed rather than explicit. The assumption for Winthrop is much like the context from which he and the other Puritans left. In this context, church and state exist in some regards as inextricably connected. For example, his exhortation to his community to faithfully commit to these ideals which will in turn, further reflect out to those other colonies reveals that for Winthrop, political and social stability, is a sign of God’s blessing on their community. In this way, the “city on a hill” seems to be the political community, conflating the religious with the political. Exemplifying this, Winthrop was not only an important Christian figure but became of the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and was a founder of the city of Boston. The political offices he held were also opportunities to enact communal ideals into society. For Winthrop and others, it was difficult to differentiate between these ideas.
(4) Perhaps the most dangerous idea propagated from Winthrop is his understanding that the colonists were under a covenant with God like the ancient Israelites. He says this himself, “We are entered into covenant with Him for this work.” Just prior to this statement he references Saul’s eradication of the Amalekites! The people fleeing persecution in Europe are charged with viewing their relationship as a community (which is also geopolitical) in terms of covenant with a reference to a genocide. Furthermore, the consequences of not doing what the Lord requires will bring about punishment for the settlers. To be fair, when reading Winthrop's example of Saul and the Amalekites, it does not appear to be used in support of any genocidal or oppressive action against Native Americans. But, in using the example, it suggests that the new community could receive an order—like Saul—to eradicate or do away with tribal peoples. This is dangerous and the positioning of their community in the same light as Israel is suspect. The early colonists deliverance from Europe appeared as a sign that God is with them. This deliverance could easily recall the story of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, and it follows that God is therefore calling a new people to a new world. It is easy to see the connection that one can make, but it also holds within it a potential for religiously sanctioned violence. If this people is "chosen," then their political actions of war and dominance of the surrounding tribal peoples (who are not Christian) can easily be justified.
(5) The internalization of fear and victimhood in this case resulted in the oppression of other peoples, as we know from subsequent history. This is not just confined to the Puritans, other colonies, Native, and African peoples. This is observable in a plethora of other ways. Depending on the circumstances, a persecuted minority (whether real or imagined) can internalize pain, suffering, and attack others from a sense of self-preservation. This is one of my greatest fears for rightwing conservative evangelical Christians in America. This group in America represents the singularly most powerful, wealthy, and privileged voting bloc to ever to exist in the world, ever. The amount of real power that this purportedly persecuted group possess is staggeringly immense. The danger is that when this sort of fear is inculcated into this privileged group is that they can easily cause real harm to others and justify it, because they have been “persecuted.” In cases like this, the persecuted can become the persecutors.
(6) Much of the external motivation to be a city on a hill is buttressed by warnings of judgement from God. Winthrop offers this, "But if our hearts shall turn away, so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship other Gods, our pleasure and profits, and serve them; it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess it." For Winthrop and others, the demands of purity and obedience to God is inextricably connected to political realities. So for example, to conceive of obedience to God is not just an individual or a spiritual community's goal, but the responsibility of the whole colony. If those demands are not met, they will be punished and will perish from the land. This means that somehow, in someway, this land was predetermined to be the new colonists land and holds within this the assumption that God promised it to them!
(7) My final observation of this sermon is that many of these same ideas and values persist today. Much of what is wrong in Christian political discourse resembles the exact same issues as the past. The Church, that is, the people of God, is the city shining on a hill, not the US, not modern Israel, not any other geopolitical entity. To assume this is to believe in a series of assumptions about the covenantal relationship between God and country, the purpose of the State, and ownership of the land. All of which feeds a collective psyche which develops a sense of divine exceptionalism, to the detriment of those around them.
Sermon:
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/a-model-of-christian-charity-2/
Footnotes:
[1]https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/the-city-upon-a-hill-speech
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/12/news/transcript-of-reagan-s-farewell-address-to-american-people.html
[3]https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911addresstothenation.htm
[4]http://obamaspeeches.com/074-University-of-Massachusetts-at-Boston-Commencement-Address-Obama-Speech.htm