“We Bind Ourselves” 5/21/44
Scripture: Psalm 24
It was not easy to be a “dissenter” from traditional expressions of religion in England of the 16th or 17th century. And so, after much persecution and numerous perils, a sizable group of these “dissenters” moved to Holland where they might worship in freedom and peace. It became apparent to them very shortly, however, that they would not make headway in Holland. In fact they might expect in future years to lose their own identity through probable intermarriage of their children and grandchildren with the Dutch people. They were not content with that prospect.
And so they sought permission from the British crown to go and settle in the new land across the Atlantic. The stormy voyage, with the stormier days ahead after landing, formed a fitting climax to the stormy character of their restless, freedom-loving lives.
But let it be remembered that these freedom-loving people, spiritual forbears of Americans - and particularly of those who worship in the Congregational fellowship - were far from anarchists. [Complete individual freedom would be anarchy.] They were orderly and systematic and disciplined about their new freedom. They were thoughtful, and well educated people.
And so on that fateful day in 1620, before leaving the cabin of the Mayflower to set foot on Plymouth Rock, and carve new homes on a wilderness shore, those hardy men drew up, and signed, a compact mutually binding themselves together in a community and a body politic.
The signing of that Mayflower Compact was not a compulsory affair. Out of the 65 adult male passengers on the little ship, 41 were signers of the compact. That was a decisive majority. But it was not all of the men aboard. The signing of the compact had been a voluntary democratic affair in which approximately two thirds of the men came to agreement. That was enough to assure an orderly existence on the new shore. When someone seriously offended against the common welfare, he could be punished without individual retaliation - or even a vigilante committee, for they were an organized community.
When the need for a school later became apparent, they could attack the problem as a community. When attacked by enemies, they could make a common defense. Within this framework of mutually agreed order, each found the maximum of freedom which he might have, and survive!
Other colonies had their agreed form of government. Most began with charters granted by the British crown. They worked out their local government in line with those charters and their own needs. Eventually they all found that, to survive misunderstanding and tyranny from abroad, and their own potential bickerings and tensions on the new shores, they must have a further community of agreement.
Slow to commit themselves, they experimented with various forms of association. The organization under which they operated in revolting from European tyranny proved inadequate, and so a better organization was perfected. At length there emerged the type of constitutional government we now live under in these United States.
Meanwhile, nations have continued their individualistic, largely anarchic, definitions of freedom for another 2 or 3 centuries. When one government, state or nation comes to disagreement and conflict with another government, state or nation in the international scene, the final arbitrament is recourse to arms. Warfare by individual nations, and sometimes by combinations of nations, is the mode of settlement on which nations have usually placed their final reliance.
Obviously, we are still in that stage. One government sees a chance to get ahead over the necks and liberties of others. So it takes its “club,” its guns, ships, tanks, planes and even its educational structure in hand and goes after its aim; disregarding the welfare of the community of nations and peoples; scornful and impatient of such machinery for cooperative control as does exist.
Another government quickly takes up its club, its guns, ships, tanks, planes and even its educational structure to defend itself from the aggression of the predatory power. Combinations of nations take sides, life the “ganging up” of neighborhood boys. And the conflict becomes deadly destructive.
Thus far, it has seemed necessary to have the club handy. Any nation with a sincere belief in the rightness and integrity of its ways will defend itself against depredation. Any householder will use what weapons he may have at hand to protect his household against robbery and assault. But the householder would rather have his protection taken care of by regularly authorized officers on the policing force of his mutually-agreed-upon community organization. He has “bound himself” as a citizen in an orderly community and he helps to make that community strong enough to handle the fellow who elects to disregard all laws and morals.
The same ought, eventually, to be the case among nations. As a matter of fact some progress has been made. There has been a Hague Tribunal before which questions of international concern might be brought in the hope that they could be settled as civil cases might be settled in one of our county courts.
There have been conventions drawn up by which most nations have reached agreement in matters such as treatment of prisoners of war, use of international Red Cross facilities, and even the use or non-use of certain potential weapons.
A League of Nations was formed, and an attempt was made to operate its provisions. But still there is not the kind, or degree, of cooperative support by all nations necessary to make these agencies, thus far created, work effectively.
Here and there a voice suggests that the only way to have peace in the world of nations is to have a nation strong enough in arms to tell the others where to “head in.” Unquestionably that is one effective approach. But the “effect” may not always be the one desired. Germany and Japan have each tried it and much of their experience proves that it can be made to work. Perhaps some of our citizens would have us try it next with a somewhat bigger stick, and perhaps in alliance with a few other neighbors whose sticks are also tough and knobby.
A committee of vigilantes is effective also. So is a Ku Klux Klan assembly. So is a lynching party. The terrible danger in it is that the private use of force is more apt to err than is the publicly controlled police and legal organization. The Klan may become arrogant, the vigilantes and the lynchers may get the wrong culprit. The country as a whole doesn’t trust itself to the methods represented in these movements! Neither do the nations as a whole trust the domination of one nation in the international scene, nor will they long trust the domination of a combination of nations.
To make any plan for world cooperation feasible and workable, that plan must be based on the trust and the willing consent of most of the world’s people. Ultimately, the trust or mistrust of the peoples is a more powerful force for peace or warfare than is strength of arms! That lesson, now being taught so slowly, so painfully, at such great cost of life and treasure, to Axis governments, is one which the “teaching powers” must not miss themselves!
Yes, we have made some progress in our search for world order, but it is imperative that we go ahead to some kind of improvement, just as our own early colonies found that they must improve their Federation.
I do not think the ideal has yet appeared. But it must be worked out in cooperation with the other governments of the world. Without progress in such efforts, our only hope lies in the continued use of the kind of force that resembles vigilantes in a frontier that has not yet known sheriff or judge. With successful progress, we may hope and work for a day when our strength of arms, together with that of other governments, may become a policing order and a mutually acceptable tribunal, the just arbiter of our disputes.
The basis of that compact, drawn and signed in the Mayflower, was religious. First of all, it was religious liberty those Christian pioneers sought. The religion in us all is the basic urge driving us now to seek a more effective world order, that will really work to preserve the peace and hope of all righteous peoples.
Therefore this World Order Compact, patterned after that Mayflower compact, is presented to us in the Congregational Churches of this land. It reads like this:
In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, loyal members of First Congregational Church of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, do solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God & one another, covenant & combine ourselves together to work for a just & cooperative world order. We pray that our nation shall help to establish an international organization for the better ordering of the interdependent life of nations, the preservation of peace with justice, & the furtherance of the general good of all peoples. Unto this great task we commit our wills & our ways. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names Anno Domini, 1944.
A million Congregational Christians are asked to sign it. We invite not only those who are on our membership roll, but those who customarily worship with us, to sign it. Let everyone who has reached the age of thirteen, and has joined or might join the Congregational fellowship, sign it. It is a means of making known your desire that our nation study, with other nations, and move toward a more effective form of world order. It is a commitment to work for such an order.
It should be followed by personal letters to our senators and representatives in the Congress and to those who will have a voice in the forming of party campaign platforms. Send the pamphlet which quotes the compact to members of your family who are in the armed forces to show that something is stirring toward the better world for which they are fighting.
Some will call this a dramatic publicity act. In its best sense it is that. But it is more than just a “publicity stunt.” It is one concrete expression of our determination to “bind ourselves” together for a better world community in which freedom shall have its real chance within the bounds of a self-determined discipline.
---------------
Delivered in Wisconsin Rapids, May 21, 1944.
[the following appended in pencil]
1) Invitation to sign.
2) No compulsion - it is a positive, voluntary act. If we were to have two-thirds of our membership, or 3 times the number of our men and women in service, our showing would be effective.
3) Our compacts will be taken, with others, to the General Council at Grand Rapids, Mich., where they will be collected and dedicated on June 25th. And then the will of our Congregational fellowship will be made known to our government and candidates for office in the coming national elections. We are likely to have candidates who do favor some sort of world order. If we want it, we should let it be known that their hands will be upheld.
4) Certain other church groups have their plans for World Order study and action.
a. Northern Baptist Convention has launched a “World Order Crusade” observed May 7th.
b. Disciples of Christ is issuing literature following a conference on “The church and the New World Mind.”
c. Methodists have their “Bishop’s Crusade.”
d. Presbyterians having a series of conferences studying the Christian basis for a just and durable peace.