When reading the Model of Christian Charity I'm shown values I am familiar with. Winthrop teaches the values of justice and mercy. He realizes that in this new world that "every man [should] help another in want or distress." This idea of community is one that I believe has traveled up the ages, and now more than ever should be emphasized. FDR's freedom from want exemplifies this. As an American community we are bound by the foundation of our country to aid one another in times of need, simply because we are human. I feel like a broken record with how I constantly preach supporting those who are less privileged, but it's something I'm starting to realize that I am passionate about.
Winthrop's ideals clash with Bradford's description. I fail to see the "justice and mercy" in attacking the Native Americans the Puritans come in contact with. The beautiful ideal of equality under God disappears as the colony grows large and some become more prosperous than others. And the negative freedom of participation is never even granted to some in the community, like women or children born into Puritanism. There's some obvious disparities; ones that existed then and still, in some ways, remain now.
Hey Enich!
ReplyDeleteI am going to try and not be too belligerent! I guess I just want to say that I disagree with your idea that the ideal of equality under God disappears as the colony grows larger and some men become rich. Winthrop himself writes that "in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in submission" (pg. 1). I think that it is important to focus on the way the Conquistadors treated the Indians, as opposed to the fact that they were rich. Being wealthy does not necessarily correlate with evilness. Some men are more fortunate then others and many do great things with the blessing that have been bestowed on them!
Hi Dan!
ReplyDeleteI see where you're coming from, and I didn't mean to correlate richness with evilness and I apologize if it seems like I did. However, I'd also like to point out that in "Model of Christian Charity" Winthrop suggests that those who do gain money should "honor the Lord with thy riches", quoted directly from the bible. My issue is not with wealth, because those who were able to attain it in such conditions literally rose from nothing. My issue is when those with money refuse to aid those struggling around them, especially when they claim to be this loving Christian fellowship. And while Bradford doesn't necessarily cite this directly in his account, for some reason I cans till imagine it happening.
I definitely agree that rich, selfish snobs are extremely irritating? The question is whether forcing them to give away their money takes away from the gift of charity? In other words, is it appropriate to force others to do the "right thing"? I feel like the Bible encourages us to preach the Truth, but not to force others to act upon it (kind of contrary to Catholicism, I suppose)..
ReplyDeleteBut does it matter if charity is forced or done out of free will? If we're looking at the exact meaning of charity yes, but the outcome is still the same; those who need help receive it. I believe it's pleasant to think that without some sort of coercion the necessary resources would assemble themselves out of the goodness of people's hearts, but there are far too many of those in need and not enough charitable people in the world to take care of them.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I figured out how to subscribe to these comment things! I understand what you're saying and it sucks that there are so many in need. I have a scenario you might want to think about though. Let's say that a family is able to donate $500 (and that's really all they can afford) to a certain cause. Don't you think it would be inappropriate to take that money and give it away for them? Not that this exact situation happens all the time, but I do feel like that there are families who are generous that would feel better about privately donating their funds.. What are your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI see what you're saying, and there is the difference between directly choosing what you donate to and having it chosen for you. If we're talking in more modern settings, taxes may be the best example. Theoretically you should be able to choose where your tax dollars go based upon who you vote for. Now it may not as specific as donating to a private org, but it might end up going to sources that need it more.
ReplyDeleteDid that make any sense? It's relatively late.