The Courage of our Convictions                                         10/27/46

 

Scripture:  Galations 5: 1, 5, 13-18

 

Text:  Galations 5: 1;  “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

 

This year is the 400th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther on February 15th, 1546.  It need not create any particular stir, except to remind us of the importance of the life of a man who could write so gentle a song as “Away in a Manger, no crib for his bed; the little lord Jesus lay down his sweet head” or so stirring and powerful a hymn as “A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.”  Martin Luther was the spearhead of a corrective movement in the church of his day which became the great Reformation.  He had intended a reformation within the church from its corruptions and evil practices.  But his efforts resulted in a whole new protesting movement that wrenched itself free from the authority of a power-corrupted church.

 

More than 28 years before his death, Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic monk of the Augustinian order, posted on the doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, his 95 theses, or arguments, against indulgences.  At that time, he was only 33 years old.  He had been saddened, on a visit to Rome, by evidences of corruption in the church in high places.  He became critical of certain practices, advocated major changes in Canon Law and in educational methods of the time, and even in scholastic philosophy.

 

When Tetzel came into his region urging the purchase of indulgences from sin (practically pre-payment for forgiveness of sins yet to be committed!) this young monk protested vigorously.  With no newspapers (let alone our modern means of quick communication with the public) he did according to the custom of his day.  He wrote out carefully his arguments (95 of them!) against indulgences and posted them on the church door for people to read.  Originally they were intended for local discussion.  To Luther’s astonishment, they came into “Immediate and enormous popularity.”

 

These ideas cut so deeply into the ideas and authority of the all-powerful ecclesiastical system that Rome took steps to discipline the “presumptuous monk.”  Because of a tangled political situation (and that church was very much in politics!) and because of the friendship of certain German princes and great popularity among many German people, Luther was kept out of reach of the ecclesiastical authority that would otherwise certainly have sent him to a martyr’s death.

 

Luther was not the originator of the feeling of protest within the church.  Others had worked at it for some time.  But his “theses” made him the popular standard-bearer against Roman corruption, error, and misuse of power.  Carrying on in succeeding efforts and events, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli and others, each in his own way developed the initial revolt that in time became what we know today as the Protestant churches.

 

Luther had posted his 95 these on the church door on October 31, 1517.  That date has come to be known in our time as Reformation Day, and the last Sunday of October as Reformation Sunday.  And so today, October 27th 1946, is Reformation Sunday on our Church calendar.  Its increasing observance is one of the heartening developments in American Protestantism.

 

It is impossible to revive the story of the rescue of essential Christianity from the corruption and perversion of the medieval church without setting the Protestant churches in sharp relief over against the Roman Catholic system.

 

This, I propose that we do today briefly, with no ill will toward Roman Catholic people but without apology or squeamishness.  In the kind of political world in which we believe, tolerance of those with whose creedal beliefs we differ is important.  I believe in that tolerance toward all religious faith and organizations so long as the other religious groups believe and practice the same tolerance toward mine -- and I want to underline that!

 

But there are basic differences between Christianity and other religions, among the several creeds of Christianity, and between Roman Catholic and Protestant churches in general, that are real.  And it is a false tolerance that passes them by as “negligible.”

 

Luther’s struggle, and the resulting Protestant movement, restored the vitality of Christendom.  It made Christian faith the moral motive power of a whole civilization.  It even induced a good deal of correction and spiritual improvement in the Roman Church.  After all, it came out of his deep Catholic piety.

 

Luther accomplished several other things of importance.  He paved the way for religious liberty.  I think that there is convincing evidence that the Roman Catholic church officially approves of religious liberty only for Roman Catholicism.  I see no sign, except silence, that it approves of religious liberty for Protestantism, medieval or modern.  Protestantism has a special stake in religious freedom over which it had better be constantly vigilant!

 

Luther gave dignity to the tasks of the common man.  In a church where salvation is mediated through the sacraments, discovered and developed through the years by the church fathers; and wherein those sacraments can be performed only by the priests, a great gulf is set between priest and layman.  The layman’s utter dependence upon the church’s priesthood for his salvation puts him under powerful control -- and, under that control, he becomes an instrument for the increase of that power!

 

The reformers held that salvation comes directly from God and is given freely to all who come for it in repentance and sincerity.  The minister is a preacher of the Word, and the pastor of a parish; not an intermediary between God and man.

 

Luther held that monasticism is not a calling of particular sanctity.  In his eyes it was an escape from social responsibility.  Most of the time of monks and nuns was spent in prayer and contemplation.  Luther felt that much of that time had better be spent in understanding the obligations of the butcher, the baker, the farmer, the magistrate, the parent, the teacher.  His belief exalted the tasks of the common man -- gave dignity to all laymen.  It also “whittled the clergy down to size.”

 

In this connection, Luther founded the ministerial home.  Years after his first rebellion against some of the practices of the Roman Church, Luther married a nun and founded a home, thus abolishing the obligatory celibacy of the clergy.  From the ministerial home has come more of the names in “Who’s Who” in our country than from any other home!  [I’m sorry, my father is not a clergyman and I’m not listed in that directory of important people.]

 

Luther also gave the people of his own country an important translation of the Scriptures directly into the German tongue from the original Greek and Hebrew.  Other translations had been made from the Latin Vulgate, but were not in the common language of the Germans.  His translation did for the Germans what the King James authorized version has done for the English speaking world.

 

These, then, are the contributions of Luther to the Reformation and to Protestantism --(1)  restored vitality in Christendom, (2) religious liberty, (3) exhaltation of the tasks of the common man, (4) the ministerial home, (5) the Bible for lay people.

 

This year, Reformation Sunday has a particular point of focus in our State.  A week from next Tuesday, at the November 5th election, we are to vote “yes” or “no” on the following proposal which has passed the legislature of 1943 and 1945 for referral to the citizens.  “Shall section 3 of article X of the constitution be amended so as to authorize the legislature to provide transportation of children to and from any parochial or private school or institution of learning?”

 

Passage of this constitutional amendment, and by probable subsequent acts of the legislature, would give schools of particular churches a special benefit -- not large in actual funds for bus travel, but an important “favored position” in the public concern.

 

This proposal is supported by most Roman Catholic opinion in the State - and in the nation.  Publicity for it is handled by an able group headed by the dean of the school of journalism of Marquette University.  We are being persuaded that the child who can not be transported to a parochial school by public funds is the victim of discrimination as compared to that child who is transported at public expense to a public school.

 

That is a premise which is false.  No such discrimination exists.  Public transportation is part of the strengthening of public schools.  Our present bus law provides transportation only to grade children over 2 and one-half miles from their school and to high school pupils over 4 miles from school.  Those closer have to walk or use private transportation.  It is not a matter of general child welfare and safety.  It is a matter of improved public schooling.

 

That schooling is legally available to all, and everyone with property gets taxed for it - including childless couples and unmarried individuals; those who do send children to public schools and those whose children are sent by their own choice to parochial schools.  The charge of discrimination simply does not stand up.

 

The Lutheran family whose children attend Lutheran parochial school pays for that expense and expects to do so.  Most of the Lutheran leadership of this state appears to be opposed to this measure.  Their literature says “Vote No!”

 

The Seventh Day Adventists of the state have parochial schools.  One of their laymen, a Mr. J. C. Michalenko of Auburndale, called at my home this past week, saying that their church was vigorously opposed to the measure.  “I believe in parochial education,” he said.  “I think we ought to have parochial schools.  But I expect to pay for all of mine!”  And he says the Seventh Day Adventists members plan to campaign vigorously against the measure.

 

Leaders of Protestant denominations represented in the Wisconsin Council of Churches vigorously oppose the measure.  One of them, Dr. Swan, will speak here tonight at the Union Service.  This subject is being considered in pulpit and pew of churches of all faiths, our own Congregational Churches among them.

 

The issue seems to me to boil down to a question of keeping complete separation of church and state, or of letting that line become a confused and hazy one over which some may seek special standing.  This is being sought by the Roman Catholic church.  Roman Catholic opinion is behind the President’s representative to the Vatican - a contact with State enjoyed by no other church representatives.  Thoughtful Protestant opinion opposes it.

 

A successful move for school transportation could logically be followed by moves for publicly financed books, lunches, teacher’s remuneration, even building.

 

Certain Catholic expression passes it off by saying that that is not being considered, and is quite unlikely.  But some of it is being done, locally, in some places, now.  And Protestant opinion is foolish and asleep if it settles back in an easy, false tolerance at this point.

 

I have learned from experience that Roman Catholic opinions follow a logical line that leads one’s thought well.  Grant the premise, and the argument does follow.  If you disagree, disagree in the very premise, else your later attempts to break away from the reasoning process are lame.

 

A Catholic position against marriage of a Catholic and a Protestant by a Protestant minister of this community was stated to that minister in this way by a priest of this community.  “Well, if you believe as I do, wouldn’t you do as I do in trying to prevent this marriage?”  If you say “yes” to that point in false and foolish effort to be tolerant you lose your point from then on.  The only way to meet that logically is to say, “But I don’t believe as you do on that subject!” and develop the logic from that point on.

 

Now this so-called bus bill is admittedly a debatable subject.  Capable arguments can be marshaled on either side of the question.  It seems clear to me that the best logic and the wisest policy is to vote “No” on the measure as the best means of assuring continuance of separation of church and state in our State and Country: freedom of the State from church control and freedom of church from State control (for the State will certainly have a supervisory hand in that to which it contributes state support!)

 

Some of the best expressed arguments against approval of the measure are expressed in this little pamphlet of the Wisconsin Committee for Religious Liberty.  I have asked the ushers to hand one of these to each of you as you leave the service.  Please read them over.  They will be discussed further by Dr. Swan this evening.  I am firmly convinced that the public should vote “No” on this proposal at the November 5th election.  And I believe that the opposition should be as certain to get to the polls to vote as I am sure that those favoring will be there.

 

The Protestant Reformation represents a 400-year-old movement that had the courage of convictions.  Let that courage be no less vigorous now than then!

 

----------------

 

Delivered in Wisconsin Rapids, October 27, 1946.