City on a Hill

Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting from John Winthrop’s seventeenth century lecture, “A Model of Christian Charity,” in which Winthrop called on the Massachusetts Bay Colony to be “as a city on a hill.” and reminded his fellow Puritans that “the eyes of all people are upon us.” But the popular symbol of America as a shining beacon of freedom for the world is a long way from Winthrop’s original concept. The city he envisioned was one in which community – not freedom – was the dominant theme.

“We must delight in each other,” Winthrop said, “make other’s conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together.” The city on a hill was one in which people put the common good before their own desires and ambitions, “that every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection.” They were more concerned with their dependence on each other than with independence from any authority. (Yes, even including the Church of England.)

The Puritans who came to these shores in the 1630s believed they were bound in a covenant with God. If they failed to keep their end of the bargain, they should expect to be punished – not individually but as a community. “If we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken,” said Winthrop, “we shall be made a story and byword through the world.” In other words, they would be a public humiliation, a scourge upon the earth. The city on a hill metaphor was intended as a warning as much as a promise. Keeping that covenant put the Puritans under specific obligations.

It required them to be charitable to each other. “There is a time when a Christian must sell all and give to the poor,” Winthrop insisted. “There is a time also when Christians (though they give not all yet) must give beyond their ability.” They were to let no one go hungry or without shelter. They had a duty to visit the sick, and to comfort those whose loved ones had died. They were supposed to watch out for each other. “Mutual watch,” they called it, and they took it very seriously.

If “mutual watch” sounds comforting, we should remember that it has a dark side. It’s the uncomfortable part of living in community. It means that if you beat your wife, you should expect to be reported to the authorities. Your absence from worship will be noticed and if you miss enough services, you will be reprimanded. If you get drunk and insult your neighbor, you’ll have to apologize for it - in public.

Anyone who’s lived in a small town has experienced this to some extent. If you grew up in a town under 2,000 people, chances are you haven’t ever quite lost that sense that everyone knows your business. And you know everyone else’s. You learn that everything you do and say will likely be recorded in someone’s memory and played back to someone else. You learn to mind what you say and what you do. You learn to take care of your reputation, because once you lose it, you can’t get it back.

The “mutual watch” was a duty, and it went way beyond sharing information. It required doing whatever was necessary to relieve the suffering of others in the community. Winthrop spoke of a “double law” that regulated all their relationships: “This law requires two things,” he said. “First, that every man afford his help to another in every want or distress. Secondly, that he perform this out of the same affection which makes him careful of his own goods.”

This understanding of each person’s responsibility for the well-being of everyone else was integral to life in the “city on the hill." Not exactly what Ronald Reagan had in mind.

In fact, the Puritans were as wary of personal freedom as we are entranced by it. Their commitment was to community. They understood its costs and its perils. They knew that community wasn’t easily accomplished; it was a difficult and often frustrating undertaking.

They also knew that freedom, unharnessed to a self-reflective humility, was a dangerous thing. It had the potential to loose the demons of greed and corruption, to elevate self-righteousness, and ultimately to destroy community itself.

America has come a long way from the Puritan dream. Few of us would want to go back to it, even if we could. But have we perhaps forgotten something life-affirming and necessary in our national journey? Does personal freedom, when taken to an extreme, have a way of isolating us? Even in crowds, we often find ourselves alone as we listen privately to music on our mp3 players or carry on cell phone conversations as we walk down the street. We often feel anonymous, just numbers on a social security or credit card. We receive phone calls from robots. We spend hours sitting alone in our cars, commuting to work and driving to shopping malls. We try to fill our need for community with characters from television shows or by joining special interest groups, or instant messaging. Yet we still feel oddly unconnected, and so we chase our dreams across the globe, but they’re never quite within our grasp.

Community makes demands on us. It is hard work – life-changing, world-changing, hard work. It intrudes on our personal space and requires us to relinquish some of our own freedom for the good of all. But it is through these sacrifices that we become part of something greater than ourselves. “Love,” claims Winthrop, “is the bond of perfection.” In this bond people “partake of each other’s strength and infirmity, joy and sorrow, weal and woe.” This is the city on a hill that Winthrop envisioned: true community, a beacon not of freedom, but of love.

Practicing Optimism

Yesterday afternoon, as I was having my blood drawn prior to seeing my oncologist, I mentioned to the technician that my husband and I had recently celebrated our fortieth wedding anniversary. In her musical Cayman Islands accent, she asked me if I thought I’d live until my fiftieth. The question rocked me, especially in that setting, since personnel at the cancer center have been uniformly optimistic. I mumbled something like “I hope so.”

I take to heart comments and questions about cancer and mortality these days, since these issues are no longer theoretical for me. Occasionally I’m blindsided by one that sends me spiraling into depression, but most of the time I try to put them behind me. As I gradually learn how to live in the present, they’ve become less painful; their sting doesn’t last as long. They’re like those little stones thrown up by truck wheels that ping off your windshield. Fortunately, most of them bounce away without causing any damage.

As insensitive as her question seemed, I suspect it was benign, for she then launched into a long description of a fiftieth anniversary celebration she’d recently attended in which the couple had renewed their vows. “They dressed up in wedding clothes and acted like they were still sixteen,” she said. She’d clearly enjoyed the event and apparently found it meaningful enough to advise me to think about it for our fiftieth.

I know wedding vow renewal ceremonies have become popular in recent years, but so far I fail to see their attraction. It seems to me that the point of wedding vows is that you give them once, with the intention that you will keep them throughout your lifetime. I have the sense that renewing them oddly undermines the original vows. Certainly, forty or fifty years into a marriage, a couple can make their vows with a deeper, more mature understanding of what the words signify. But isn’t part of the mystery of marriage exactly that “not-knowing,” that blind leap into a future you can’t see? That naive tumble into adventure?

I was appallingly naïve when I made my wedding promises forty years ago. I was twenty-one, fresh out of college, a child of the idealistic sixties who was caught up that era’s romantic optimism. Like most girls, I was raised on Cinderella, happily-ever-after stories.

I remember very little of the specifics of our wedding ceremony. But I do know that the words “’till death do us part” rocked me at the time, with their gravitas and intimations of mortality. They rock me still. That my husband and I have vowed to stay together until death parts us means that our story, ultimately, will not have a happy ending.

All of which suggests that the story is not actually about the ending, but about the middle – the day to day living of it. Marriage seems to be as much a mysterious advenutre as life itself.

What I’m cultivating now is a different kind of optimism than I had forty years ago. A practiced optimism , an optimism that is not subject to the whims of fortune, but focused on waking up each day, grateful that I’m alive. Focused on being truly alive throughout the day.

Will I live to see my fiftieth wedding anniversary? I sincerely hope so. But right now I’m going to celebrate this day.

Today I’m awake. I’m alive. Praise God.

Immersion

Yesterday afternoon I attended the reading of a novel-in-progress. It was a good reading and a good novel; the voice was strong and the narrative well-paced, infused with vivid, telling details. In the question and answer period after the reading, there was some discussion of the novel’s theme, and the process the author used to discover the theme. One person wanted to know if the author had gone back and thematically revised the manuscript. Then the author was asked to name her themes and when she responded by explaining how she had woven the moon and the woods throughout the narrative, someone pointed out that those were images, not themes.

The exchange started me thinking about the difference between theme and image, which led me to consider the differences between the fiction writer’s task and the task of the literary critic. A theme, of course, is an idea – basically an abstraction, a compressed thought that expresses a particular point of view – presumably the author’s. Images, on the other hand, are the stuff of the life of the novel. Images are where you find the theme.

So how exactly does a novelist go about establishing a theme? How necessary is it that the writer intentionally shape a story around a theme? For some time I’ve suspected that the best writing is more intuitive than intellectual, and that the writer experiences the emergence of the theme exactly as the reader does – slowly, through immersing herself in the images.

We humans are story-telling creatures. For thousands of years, people shared stories in which images were the primary expression of meaning. Our ancestors were comfortable with metaphor and mystery. Then something changed, and I’m not sure exactly how or when, but it seems that now, in the western world, we’ve become so enamored of “facts” that we are no longer comfortable in the world of symbol. Maybe it’s science, or academic or the media, or a mixture of many factors. But it seems that we want to nail down – exactly – what something means. We are driven by the need to be unequivocal about ideas, from politics to science. We want to precisely explain the meaning of an event or a story. We “deconstruct” fiction, or have it deconstructed for us, so that we can understand it correctly.

But an image always contains more than a single, identifiable meaning. A metaphor is a window onto more than one landscape. A gesture is both more mysterious and more complete than an idea. We know we’re loved not because someone has told us so, but because we’ve been embraced.

Robert Frost was once asked to explain the “hidden meaning” of his poems. He said, “If I wanted you to know I’d had told you in the poem.” Finding the hidden meanings, finding the theme, isn’t the job of the writer. It’s the job of the literary critic. It’s akin to the task of a fisherman –who must drop a line or a net over the side of a boat and pull a fish into the air. But the novelist’s task is a different one, at once more visceral and more dangerous. The novelist can’t stay in the boat; she must jump all the way in, completely submerge herself in the water. She must swim with the fish.