Eddie Hyatt continues to butcher the history of the Pilgrims to pretend God is a capitalist...

::::::::

Click Here

How ironic. In yesterday's thanksgiving devotional responding to NAR dominionist Eddie Hyatt's rewrite of Pilgrim history, I made an offhand comment that the Pilgrim's initial experiment on governance would probably be described as socialistic and that Eddie would probably speak against that. I just did not realize that it would take him one day to do so. We must understand that as a dominionist, Eddie Hyatt worships this country. It is the idol that he bows down to. He loves the sin and excess it offers him. Eddie has a specific role within the NAR and that is to be a faux-historian. He butchers history almost as bad as he butchers the bible, however. The premise he always works from is that everything American has always been good and wholesome, until the modern-day Democratic Party has ruined everything. The fact that we revolted against England in violation of Romans 13? Yeah, that's acceptable. Slavery? Eddie spins it so somehow, we were on the forefront of freeing slaves, which we most certainly were not. It is also not good enough to extol the American experiment but Eddie has to pretend that it is all godly, even right down to our economic system of Capitalism. The above link is to another article he posted on Charisma News today about the pilgrims, apparently because he is trying to drive sales of his book on the Pilgrims. So, let us reason once more together beloved as we correct both his abuse of scripture and of history.

"Before the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and Venezuela, socialism was tried right here on American soil and utterly failed. The Pilgrims, who established the first permanent English settlement in New England in the fall of 1620, at first attempted a socialist style of living. They disbanded it, however, when it became obvious that their community could not survive with such a system. The Pilgrim's journey to America was funded by a group of venture capitalists who provided the ship and supplies for their journey to the New World. In return, the Pilgrims agreed to live communally until the debt, including interest, was paid. Everyone would receive the same recompense for their work, and everything above their basic necessities would go into a common fund to be used to pay their creditors. In other words, there was no economic inequality. Income produced by farming, fishing and fur trading was spread around and evenly divided among members of the community. They were all equal with only one economic class. They had what modern politicians call "equity," which is a guaranteed equal outcome. William Bradford, who served as governor of Plymouth for many years, told of the challenges of this socialist system and how it almost destroyed their community (Hyatt, "Pilgrims and Patriots," 36-38)." - Eddie Hyatt

The "socialist style of living" was their agreement with the people who funded their journey. It was not decided for ideological reasons but because the funders thought it would turn a profit quicker for them. It was part of the Mayflower Compact I might add, which Eddie raved about in yesterday's article. This system did not almost destroy the community. The first Thanksgiving alone indicated an abundance of provision, not that they were struggling with productivity. The first harsh winter however they only survived due to the native Americans that had befriended them. The intent of the colony was to have common cause to be able to pay off their debt quicker. The NY Times describes the Pilgrims as more akin to shareholders in a corporation rather than subjects to socialism. That does not jive however with the false narrative Eddie Hyatt is always trying to peddle. Because he must try and sell Republican Party talking points, Hyatt is always speaking against things like diversity and equity as somehow evil. Capitalism must always be held up as a divine beacon and thus things like socialism must be cast into the most negative light possible. The reality with the pilgrims however is not that the system failed but rather the people did. As the same NY Times article outlines, people just did not like the system but we will see Eddie allude to that soon enough as he launches into four "lessons the Pilgrims learned about Socialism.

"1. Socialism destroys initiative. Under this socialist system, everyone received the same recompense for their work. No matter how hard, or how little, they worked, all received the same income. With no reward tied to their labor, initiative was destroyed, and everyone put forth their least effort. Why work and dream when you are trapped in a system that mandates equality of outcome for everyone? This socialist system destroyed initiative and almost destroyed the Pilgrim community." - Eddie Hyatt

Once again, Hyatt is being deceptive. First of all, they all agreed to this system as the means to pay off the debt they incurred for the voyage. Keep in mind also that there were only 132 Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower to begin with and only 50 left within one year. Hardly a burgeoning society trying to determine the best economic organizing system. It was not a "socialist system," which is simplistic at best and deceitful at worst. It was the agreed upon method of ensuring they would pay off their investors. So, it was not that their dreams were somehow trapped in this system. That is an absurdity. What did happen is there ended up being a lot of griping and moaning. There was reward for their labor in that they were able to pay down their debt. True there was no early Elon Musk in the Pilgrim colony but there was not supposed to be. If people put forth their least effort that is because of who they were, not the system they were in.

"2. Socialism fosters irresponsibility. Young men, Bradford said, resented getting paid the same as older men when they did so much more of the work. As a result, they tended to slouch and slack since they knew they would receive the same no matter how hard they worked. Knowing they would receive the same no matter how hard or how little they worked, the women often refused go to the fields to work, complaining of sickness and headaches. To have compelled them to go, Bradford said, would have been considered tyranny and oppression. With no individual reward tied to their innovation and labor, everyone gave their least effort. Irresponsibility became obvious throughout the community, and many became gripped with a sense of hopelessness." - Eddie Hyatt

It is amazing that Eddie Hyatt thinks younger men choosing to slouch and slack because older men could not do as much as they are is somehow a favorable portrait of the younger men? That he cannot see they were the problem, not the "system" they had already agreed to! Faking sickness to avoid work is also a sign of the person, not the system. The individual reward was that they would get to pay off their debtors, not that they would be able to build a capitalist empire. The irresponsibility Hyatt misses is the very people he holds up here. It is irresponsible to your fellow Pilgrims to slouch, slack, or pretend to have a headache to avoid do the work you already agreed you would do for the transportation to the new world. The hopelessness that gripped the early Pilgrim colony was more related to the harsh winters and various diseases that were killing of many of the members, not some philosophical disagreement between capitalism and socialism.

"3. Socialism extinguishes hope and generates strife. This socialist system led to a widespread sense of hopelessness. With everyone locked into a closed economic system, there was nothing individuals or families could do to improve their personal lot. Feeling caught in a trap, bickering and strife began to emerge. The older men, Bradford said, felt they deserved more honor and recompense because of their age and resented getting paid the same as the youngsters in their midst. The young men, on the other hand, resented getting paid the same as the older men when they often did more of the work. This sense of hopelessness and the ensuing strife drained energy and discouraged innovative thinking and led to very serious complications for the community." - Eddie Hyatt

What a ridiculous talking point. Nothing is ever as definitive as Eddie makes out. The top five countries measured for happiness metrics all have a Democratic Socialist form of governance. So not all socialism leads to strife. Things like hope and strife all depend on one's perspective. There is plenty of hope and strife in our capitalist society. Sure, the millionaires would be filled with hope but the homeless may not. As much as one can point to capitalism as a reason for many hopes one could also acknowledge that it is the source of much strife. God is not impressed by our carnal theories on economic or governmental organization. It may come as a shock to someone like Eddie Hyatt who has carved out a nice living fleecing God's flock but the United States ranks dead last among 26 developed countries in poverty rate. Sounds like some folks here may be short on hope and long on strife. This is always about individual perspective, including the Pilgrims. The young resented the old and the old resented the young. That has more to do with the individual resentment than the form of government. Eddie also ignores all of the other mitigating factors. Disease and the harshness of winter are historically noted as the primary drivers working against the Pilgrims. Eddie knows this but he is not trying to be a fair historian. He is trying to advance the political goals of the Republican Party and the NAR by deceiving Christians.

'4. Socialism is incompatible with human nature. Bradford believed socialism did not work because it runs counter to human nature as created by God. In Scripture, God rewards individuals for their labor and good works. Capitalism works because it is compatible with the reality of human nature and the world in which we live. I will never forget visiting Eastern Europe shortly after the fall of the Soviet Empire. I was struck by the grey, drab environment. Even the buildings seemed so plain, flat and lackluster. It was obvious that the Marxist system had robbed the people of life, energy and creativity. I am here reminded of the words of Winston Churchill, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."'

To be clear, this is not a defense of socialism, communism or capitalism. I am merely pushing back on the ridiculous notion that God has blessed one or the other. He has not. There can be good works in any form of government. There are also plenty of evil works in every form of government. There were plenty of socialistic themes in the ministry of Jesus. Certainly, free healthcare. Likewise, there are many socialistic portions of our own government today. Capitalism does not "work" as a statement of fact. There are a plethora of capitalist countries that exploit workers for the gain of the ruling elite. That same dynamic by the way exists in this country as well. The top 1% own 99% or the wealth. Considering the number one biblical topic after salvation is taking care of the least in society, it is not very accurate to claim capitalism is entirely aligned with God. Eddie chooses selective criteria and avoids the obvious contradictions. The primary issue for Eastern Europe was always economic. The same drab beaten down look that seems to concern Eddie so much is littered throughout this country as well. Go visit the old factory towns that have watched all of their jobs shipped overseas by our "capitalists" and you will see poverty, husks of burned-out buildings and hopelessness. Again, I am not saying one is necessarily better than the other or worse just to stop dragging God into it. Israel was not built as a capitalist society either. It was a theocracy and then a monarchy. Odd considering Eddie is arguing that capitalism is somehow God's design. Just sheer transparent stupidity.

"When it became obvious that lack and perhaps starvation would be their lot, Bradford and the leaders of the colony decided to make a change. After much prayer and discussion, they decided to dispense with that part of the agreement with their creditors that required them to live communally until their debt was paid. In its place, they implemented a free entrepreneurial system that included private ownership of property (Hyatt, 34-36). According to Bradford, they divided the land around them, allotting to each family a certain portion that would be theirs to work and use for their own needs. Bradford said there was an immediate change. The young men began to work much harder because they now knew they would eat the fruit of their own labors.

There were no more complaints from the older men for the same reason. And now the women were seen going into the fields to work, taking the children with them, because they knew they and their family would personally benefit. Instead of lacking food, each family now grew more food than they needed, and they began to trade with one another for furnishings, clothes and other goods. They also had enough excess to trade with the Indians for furs and other items. In short, the colony began to prosper when they got rid of their socialist form of government and implemented a free entrepreneurial system. Of their experience with socialism, Bradford wrote:

This community [socialism] was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort " and showed the vanity of that conceit of Plato's, and 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; as if they were wiser than God (Hyatt, "1726: The Year That Defined America," 25)." - Eddie Hyatt

Wow, who knew that the secret to the Shangri-La of the Pilgrim colony was capitalism? What a ridiculous conclusion, of course. It is important to note here that the entire premise Hyatt expounds on is flawed. The Pilgrims agreed to collectivism, not socialism. Socialism does not forbid private property, where collectivism does. Perhaps Eddie would have been closer to make the argument against Communism, which is more closely aligned with collectivism. That does not work for Eddie because the goal is to campaign against socialism and pretend capitalism is pure and holy. None of it is true though because there are always evil men in all forms of carnal government. That said, the primary change Bradford made was to switch from the communal space of collectivism. So, the land was divided and everyone would be responsible for their portion. Essentially, Bradford gave in to the griping and moaning and said, fine, work your own land. Eddie openly admits that this changed the hearts of the greedy, whining men and they started to work harder but once again, that is a testimony against the people, not the form of government. Eddie also ignores much of the contributing factors to Plymouth growth. So many died the first winter, almost 50% of those that came on the Mayflower. After those that survived got through some of the initial hardships, more people came. There were only 50 people left in 1621 but by 1623 that had grown to 180 and more importantly, other ships brought them cattle and livestock, which greatly expanded the produce they could sell. It is deviously simplistic selectivism to focus solely on the decision to allow private property while ignoring all of the other clear factors that led to Plymouth growing.

"During the recent presidential election, we heard Kamala Harris and those on the Left using the word "equity." Equity is not equality. Equity would use government mandates to guarantee equal outcome, not equal opportunity. Equity and its twin sister, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, are innocent-sounding phrases designed to slip Marxist ideology into the thinking of an unsuspecting public. As Christians, our responsibility is to call people to Christ and help them live out their Christianity in the real world. Living out our Christianity means a life of responsibility, not looking for government handouts but working and prospering in a way that we can give a hand up to those in need. We desire the best for the greatest number of people, which is why we must reject the contemporary vision of those on the Left for government-mandated socialist systems in America. The Pilgrims would wholeheartedly agree." - Eddie Hyatt

So, we come to the true purpose of this article. To disparage political opponents and mock what they may believe. More pointedly, to pretend that God is mocking them too. In doing so, Eddie reveals he knows so much less than we even expected. Equity does not guarantee equal outcome. It actually does provide equal opportunity - that's the entire point! The concept of diversity, equity and inclusion is to level the opportunity playing field so that it is fair and equitable. The only people who disagree with this are the people who already are favored by a biased system. This is not "Marxist." That is asinine, right-wing, boogeyman talking points centered around the same lie Eddie just told. That equity is not about opportunity but rather about fixing the outcomes. That is not to say that some may use things like DEI in a corrupt manner but corruption is again central to who we are as sinful beings, not theories of economic and governmental organization. Note here how Eddie demonizes people who are not as fortunate as he is. People who chose to not deceive the church in order to make money. They are spoken of in lowly terms like looking for government handouts. How does Eddie characterize those of our brothers and sisters living in abject poverty in other countries? Are they just not living responsibly? How insulting. It is equally moronic to hold up a people from over 400 years ago as being somehow indicative how things should be today. The Pilgrims still hung women they deemed as witches and made adulterers wear letters sown into their garments for public humiliation. The bottom line here is that things like equality are also in the eyes of the beholder. To the people who have money they think everyone had the same opportunity as they did but that is rarely the truth. So, it is easier to lazily think that people who did not achieve the capitalist dreams of avarice they did must have just preferred to live off the government. Beloved, do not allow political grievance merchants like Eddie Hyatt teach you that you should hate other people. Or teach you that allowing the equality of opportunity is somehow a bad thing. Or teach you that the Pilgrims only thrived because they embraced the God inspired view of a capitalistic society. These are all NAR political talking points that should be anathema to bible believing Christians.

Reverend Anthony Wade - November 30, 2024

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.