Freedom that Begets Sacrifice

During my daily blog reading this afternoon, I came across a fascinating guest post on Powerline by Professor Paul Rahe, of Hillsdale College. A professor of history and Western heritage, Professor Rahe makes frequent appearances on Powerline, especially in the context of the apparent leftward lurch by our government. His essays are fascinating reading, and today's is no different.

The traditional story of Thanksgiving revolves around the legend of that first feast, with the Pilgrims, Samoset and Squanto, and the Plymouth colony. The history of the colony is often told in religious terms, illustrated by a communal spirit in which all colonists shared virtually everything - no private property, common fields, and equal shares of all the food. Indeed, given their deeply religious roots, it was very much an attempt to structure a community in accordance with the understood model of the early church.

What is less discussed are the struggles this budding American community faced in trying to order its society that way. Apparently, quarrels would frequenty arise among them due to the inequities of labor compared to the forced equity of its benefits, which actually tended to make them less industrious. As Professor Rahe notes:

William Bradford, Governor of the Plymouth Colony, reports that, at that time, he and his advisers considered "how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery." And "after much debate of things," he then adds, they chose to abandon communal property, deciding
that "they should set corn every man for his own particular" and assign "to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end."

The results, he tells us, were gratifying in the extreme, "for it made all hands very industrious" and "much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Even "the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

Moreover, he observes, "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times . . . that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing." In practice, America's first socialist experiment "was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."

I have often struggled with the structure of the early church, and our failure to adequately model it in today's church. It is often suggested, even today, that a socialist community would better model what a Christian community is to be. Yet I cannot help wondering about the inherent conflict with that, given that the Lord has chosen to give to each according to His will - each person has different gifts, talents and calling, yes for the benefit of the whole, but not necessarily in equal parts. Is it yet another example of human failing, however, that rejects forced charity? To share of one's blessings willingly is a greater blessing than being told that your labor is to be for the benefit of someone else, without the freedom to give it willingly. It is a puzzle to me, because while socialism claims equity of benefit for all, clearly all do not contribute to such endeavors. It demands and forces charity and sacrifice from some, which is no charity at all - no gift freely given, no compassion, no love. The center of any such community is government, taking the place of the church, in the communal model. Man is still fallen, and the inevitable outcome is resentment and discontent. Again, to Professor Rahe (emphasis mine):

The moral is perfectly clear. Self-interest cannot be expunged. Where there is private property and its possession and acquisition are protected and treated with respect, self-interest and jealousy can be deployed against laziness and the desire for that which is not one's own, and there tends to be plenty as a consequence.

But where one takes from those who join talent with industry to provide for those lacking either or both, where the fruits of one man's labor are appropriated to benefit another who is less productive, self-interest reinforces laziness, jealousy engenders covetousness, and these combine in a bitter stew to produce both conflict and dearth.

Go read the whole thing. Again, I remain somewhat conflicted. Secular, socialist government does not breed contentment in its populace. It runs counter to every understanding I have about the spirit of America. But when I consider the church, and the commitment of believers one to another, I am reminded that God's ways often don't make sense to man. In the end, government is not the church, and it cannot and should not replace the church. How should we order our lives, our society?

In the context lies the answer. Freedom that begets sacrifice, mercy and grace.