A City upon a Hill

On original and traditional meanings

Let's take a quick detour from the usual VC topics to talk about something a bit older—400 years older, to be exact. It's a Puritan text from Massachusetts, which makes it perfect for Thanksgiving. (Yes, I know the Puritans aren't the same as the Pilgrims. Stick with me here.)

This text has echoed across centuries, its meaning changing in fascinating ways. And it offers an unexpected window into today's debates over original versus traditional meaning.

You've probably heard American leaders refer to the United States as a "shining city upon a hill." The phrase became a political staple thanks to Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and 80s. But Reagan didn't invent it. He borrowed it from John Winthrop, the 17th-century governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who got it from the Gospel of Matthew.

Winthrop used the phrase in 1630 in an essay titled A Model of Christian Charity. He wrote it either onboard the Arbella on his way to America or just before leaving England—historians aren't entirely sure. His goal? To describe the high stakes of the Puritans' mission in the New World. "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill," Winthrop wrote. "The eyes of all people are upon us."

The idea of America as an exceptional, world-altering place has stuck with us. But, as I discuss in a recent Legal Spirits podcast with Notre Dame historian Don Drakeman, the meaning of "city upon a hill" has changed dramatically.

For Reagan, Winthrop was a "freedom man," and the city symbolized a refuge for people seeking freedom. Reagan's version wasn't just about liberty, though; it was a point of national pride. He described the city as "a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace." It was a place of open doors, bustling commerce, and boundless opportunity.

It's a nice image—but totally unlike the original. True, Winthrop and the Puritans sought freedom, but not in Reagan's sense of commerce and individual liberty. Their vision was static, hierarchical society, united by Christian love. They weren't tolerant of religious disagreement and would not have seen intolerance as a failing. All kinds of people? They didn't even welcome other English Protestants.

And Winthrop's "city upon a hill" wasn't a boast—it was a warning. If the Puritans failed to uphold their covenant with God and show Christian love, their mission would fail. They wouldn't be a shining example. They'd be a cautionary tale, "a story and a by-word through the world."

Just now, constitutional scholars are debating the difference between original and traditional meaning. A Model of Christian Charity isn't a binding legal text, of course, but it seems to me it offers a nice example of the issues in the constitutional debate.

Think of A Model of Christian Charity as expressing the "original meaning." Winthrop's understanding is clearer than many original meanings, in fact. The Reagan-era version—the one most Americans know today—represents the "traditional meaning" that's evolved over time. And that meaning itself is 50 years old—which is reasonably old, in a country that dates back only 250 years.

So, which one is "correct"? The original meaning, or the meaning Americans have come to understand over time?

I dig further into all this in my recent Legal Spirits episode with Don Drakeman. You can check it out here.

Comments

[Rossami]

I'm not sure I see a difference between the two asserted meanings. A "city upon a hill" is a shining example if it succeeds but a cautionary tale if it fails. In other words, both 'interpretations' are simultaneously true. That is not the case in the more conventional arguments over original vs traditional meaning.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rossami — No. In historical context, or in textualist context, they are opposites. Winthrop and his cohorts did not countenance Reagan’s boastful interpretation.

Winthrop’s Puritans hated boasting about piety. Reagan’s interpretation to them was blasphemy. Winthrop’s exhortation was a call to humility, and nothing else.

You cannot credit Reagan’s sunny exhortation without misunderstanding the Puritans. The root of that problem is not that a softer interpretation of the biblical text is impossible; the problem is that Reagan attributed his own interpretation to Winthrop, in an apparent reach for U.S-related historical authority.

That remains true despite a provocative paradoxical fact. Some among the Puritans expected their settlement to serve as an example to the world. If you are not prepared for paradox, forget paying attention to Puritans.

Thus, to argue the contrary is present-minded error, except insofar as you treat Reagan’s interpretation as indicative of his own era, and acknowledge the contrast with Winthrop—which Reagan (or his speechwriters) provocatively ignored on purpose.

None of that, by the way, was a secret to historians at the time Reagan wrenched Winthrop out of his own context, while citing him.

This may be about the 10th time I have offered this critique—basically every time Reagan’s misinterpreted citation comes up on this blog. And by the way, for those who have not done it, read the whole sermon. Many folks find it transforms their impression of Puritans entirely.

Also, there is an entire book on this subject, published not too long ago, which is worth reading. It amounts to a model intellectual history of the role of the Winthrop text throughout American history. It is titled, City on a Hill: A History of American Exceptionalism by Abram C. Van Engen. Perhaps Movsesian will find room for a credit.

[CE]

Reagan didn't misinterpret anything. He reinterpreted it for a wider audience, to inspire people instead of scolding them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

CE — To reinterpret for a present-day audience does no harm. But it does make nonsense of a claim to historical relevance.

[David Nieporent]

I’m not sure I see a difference between the two asserted meanings.

There is a different emphasis, but not a different meaning.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Once again, historical methods differ from legal ones. Present-minded context may convince you there is no different meaning. Contemporaneous context, when the Winthrop text was created, provides a context—and a meaning—opposite the modern one.

Maybe now, we do not care so much whether we believe that God's favor has already been settled upon us, in preference to all others. A boast which devout Puritans would take as blasphemous. Their focus, Winthrop's focus, was to chastise that absent humility practiced by all, God's favor—currently in suspension—would be withdrawn. The difference between certainty that a society enjoys God's favor, and doubt that God's favor will continue, is in Puritan context a profoundly opposite meaning.

The right historian, David Hall, for instance, can explain that to you. But it might take a deep dive into Puritanism to do it. And you would be the one who has to do the diving, or the lesson will probably be lost on you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Boston *was* a "city on a hill" -- actually three that had been dumped there by the glaciers. Other than a 120 foot wide strip of land along what is now Washington Street, the city was also an island.

The hills were cut down to fill in the tidal mudflats -- much of today's Boston is on land that was filled in, and the hills are largely gone,

[CE]

The hills came in handy in 1776, for placing cannons and driving the stinking British totalitarians out of Boston Harbor. It's still celebrated as Evacuation Day every year.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

There's a huge difference between the colloquial meaning of a phrase changing, and a legal text changing. You can find lists of words and phrases whose meanings have pivoted 180° in a century.

[CE]

Well, the original is almost 2,000 years old:

14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

[mulched]

Yeah, a big miss in the post to not notice that a Puritan would be citing the Biblical text.

[David Nieporent]

You mean, like someone not noticing that the post said:

But Reagan didn't invent it. He borrowed it from John Winthrop, the 17th-century governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who got it from the Gospel of Matthew.

[Rossami]

More like the author above fails to notice that (in his model), the "original" interpretation was the same as Reagan's and that Winthrop reinterpretation as a cautionary phrase is the odd man out.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rossami — Historical error does not come much more blinkered than that. You do not properly regulate historical interest according to a present-minded assessment which attempts a comparison of the Bible, John Winthrop, and Ronald Reagan.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Politicians can repurpose old quotes for new uses.

First, the words of Jesus: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?” /Matthew 12:25-26 (KJV)

Lincoln repurposed this discussion of Satan’s kingdom to describe the situation in the United States:

“‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’

“I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.”

https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/house.htm

[tuphat]

Which version wants to burn the witches?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Witches were hung.

[David Nieporent]

Who knew that they had transgender people even in those days?

[ReaderY]

If there is anything that the last few years should have taught us, it is that the United States is no shining City on a Hill. It is an ordinary country filled with ordinary people who are just as self-centered and self-serving as everybody else, and as capable of doing things like reducing others to slavery, grabbing others’ land, grifting their money, having corrupt governments, and overthrowing constitutional republics and installing dictators, as any other country.

We should stop the self-serving grandiose nonsense about how we’re so great and special and perfect, be more humble, and focus instead on trying to do better.

[Sorcer23]

Whether it was a City on a Hill or a City on a Shining Hill, I believe both refer back to St. Augustine, around 400 a.d., writing about the City of God versus the City of Man, the difference being the reason why the Roman Empire, its culture, and the Christians in it were experiencing such destruction in their lives and futures. Probably the greatest piece of apologetic literature that I know of.