1630: "A Model of Christian Charity" by John Winthrop

How to Survive in the Wilderness

I can understand how this was a written as a method of uniting Puritan settlers in order to survive; for one, Winthrop’s describes having faith in God as having enormous humility and generosity, not only asserting that “the rich and the mighty should not eat up the poor[,]”... but the traditional Christian philosophy of loving your neighbor as well. Stating that all men “might by all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection[.]”

Compare with Declaration of Independence (cf. "All men are created equal")

Winthrop's Christian Charity is not in agreement with "The Declaration of Independence." Compare [Winthrop's] hard, cold fact that 'some must be rich, some poor' to the shocking sentence of the Declaration of Independence, written 146 years later: "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happines." By contrast, Winthrop writes: “GOD ALMIGHTY in his most holy and wise providence, hath soe disposed of the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poore, some high and eminent in power and dignitie; others mean and in submission."

Diversity and Community

John Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity” mainly concerns building a solid community. Attempting to reason with inequality, Winthrop writes, “Thirdly, that every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knitt more nearly together in the Bonds of brotherly affection.” God has created us unequally so that we must lean on one another. He explains that rather than isolating and fragmenting ourselves because of our differences, we must use our differences to complete the whole picture. Life’s inequalities allow us to love and care for one another.

Why are some rich and some poor and what is our responsibility to one another?

Answer 1: 

What annoyed me the most initially was the following quote; “From hence it appears plainly that noe man is made more honourable than another or more wealthy &c., out of any particular and singular respect to himselfe, but for the glory of his creator and the common good of the creature, man” (Winthrop). This to me, is not a comforting concept. The idea that certain people are given advantages or privileges over others in the plan of God under the idea that they use these advantages and privileges to benefit all of mankind doesn’t sit right with me. At that point, if God is the one who decides our success and advantages, why choose a specific set of people to prosper and another to suffer? Under the guise that one protects the other? It seems to me to be a poor argument attempting to acknowledge the disparity in how different classes of individuals are treated under “God’s plan” . . . Why should the poor depend upon the rich to survive when so often it is the rich disenfranchising the poor? It seems like a lazy explanation trying to slink out from under the question; “why does God intend our suffering while others receive benefits in mass? Why would he create us in such disparity?”

Answer 2:

First of all, as Winthrop sees it, diversity is glorious. A universe in which everyone and every creature was the same would be boring. In creating diversity of every kind, not just rich and poor, God was "delighted to show forth the glory of his wisdom in the variety and difference of the creatures."

Secondly, diversity gives every one a challenge and an opportunity to do God's work or, as Winthrop puts it, diversity gives us all the "occasion to manifest the work of his Spirit."

Thirdly, diversity means that we all need each other, just like a body needs all of its different parts and organs in order to survive. We all have different strengths and shortcoming so that "every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knitt more nearly together in the Bonds of brotherly affection."

Why and how much are Christians asked to give? How much is too much charity?

Winthrop urges Christians to help each other even beyond the point that seems reasonable because Christians should put their duty to God even above their duty to their family. To illustrate this point, he refers to the the prophet Elisha, who told the widoe of Sareptah to prioritize charity, saying she "must first give before shee must serve her owne family."

Winthrop says that if you know someone can’t pay you back, just give to them. Don’t make a loan.  As he puts it, "Thou must observe whether thy brother hath present or probable or possible means of repaying thee, if there be none of those, thou must give him according to his necessity, rather then lend him as he requires."

Winthrop opposes all kinds of selfishness, which he links to the mistakes made by Adam, "who rent himselfe from his Creator, rent all his posterity allsoe one from another; whence it comes that every man is borne with this principle in him to loue and seeke himselfe onely, and thus a man continueth till Christ comes and takes possession of the soule and infuseth another principle, loue to God and our brother."

As Winthrop sees it, Christians should be motivated to help each other "not for wages, or by constrainte, but out of [love]."

It could be argued that Winthrop advocates for a kind of proto-Communism, when he praises the practices of the first Christians, who "sold all, had all things in common, neither did any man say that which he possessed was his owne. Likewise in theire returne out of the captivity, because the worke was greate for the restoring of the church and the danger of enemies was common to all."

Why does Winthrop think we should pick up God's slack?

The following quote only serves to further confirm to me that it’s purpose was to shake responsibility of Christianity to explain such disparities between people and their lives and experiences; “Lastly, when there is no other means whereby our christian brother may be relieved in his distress, we must help him beyond our ability rather than tempt God in putting him upon help by miraculous or extraordinary meanes[.]” What? This literally states not to ask God to perform miracles to help those he has condemned to suffering by nature of their being and to instead exert ourselves past our capabilities in order to help disenfranchised people. This is actually bonkers and so clearly an example of religion attempting to use quasi-moralistic arguments to shield from the logic [that] actually underlies their religion. If God decided who will suffer and who will benefit, why is it our responsibility to assist in decreasing that suffering and to refrain from asking for his advice and help? Simply because? Because it’s more moralistic to help your fellow man than condemn his suffering to the absent hands and eyes above? It just really seems like a way to expense God from any accountability or even responsibility while still administering him as the [ultimate] power which makes legitimately no sense to me. It sounds like we are expected to pick up God’s slack.

Loving Those Like Us

Winthrop argues that love takes place when the likeness between yourself and another is acknowledged. When those who follow Christ acknowledge their likeness, they need to treat each other with love. I had this impression from the following, “This loue is as absolutely necessary to the being of the body of Christ, as the sinews and other ligaments of a naturall body are to the being of that body.” 

High Stakes:"A City on a Hill"

"For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are uppon us. Soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our God in this worke wee haue undertaken, and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. Wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of God, and all professors for God's sake. Wee shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into curses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whither wee are a goeing."

In the Wordy Shipmates, Sarah Vowell argues  arguing that the community and solidarity that the Puritans exuded has been in many a missing component in the ideology of the “Modern America.” She uses former president, Ronald Reagan, as an example claiming that he misconstrued the Winthrop quote he loved to use so much about America being a "City on a Hill"; forgetting the foundations of solidarity and community Winthrop preached by leaving “thousands of poor kids who had to skip lunch and sleep in poisoned neighborhoods” (66).