2ndGen,
Greetings, my brother in Christ.
You wrote:
But we all know what happened with Henry and the other Kings who had issues with having to be subject to a “Roman” Pope. Thus began to be born all the “ethnic” churches that excluded persons of color (the church of England, the Lutherans, etc…) and protestantism was divided by race and nationalities (exactly what Christ “undid” when He came here).
While I agree that “ethnic” churches came into being – each political state setting up its own church – I don’t think you can attribute it to racism. A state church in Sweden, for example, would likely have been composed only of Swedes simply because they were the only people living in Sweden. Similarly, the Church of England, until England became a colonial power, was pretty much restricted to the English.
We can debate as to whether “state churches” should have existed but it wasn’t exactly a new idea – Constantine did much the same upon his conversion. And, certainly, the history of the people of Israel in the Hebrew scriptures was one in which Judaism was the religion of the whole people.
A big problem with state churches is that religion and politics became intertwined in a way that allowed the church (whether Protestant or Catholic) to deal with heresy rather forcefully yet keep its hand seemingly free of blood. While the church might declare a person a heretic, it was a law of the state that made heresy a capital offense and it was the state that would execute those who had been declared heretics by the church.
One need only look, for example, at the Council of Constance, where John Hus was declared a heretic and bound over to the secular authorities:
This holy synod therefore pronounces the said John Hus, on account of the aforesaid and many other matters, to have been a heretic and it judges him to be considered and condemned as a heretic, and it hereby condemns him. It rejects the said appeal of his as harmful and scandalous and offensive to the church’s jurisdiction. It declares that the said John Hus seduced the Christian people, especially in the kingdom of Bohemia, in his public sermons and in his writings; and that he was not a true preacher of Christ’s gospel to the same Christian people, according to the exposition of the holy doctors, but rather was a seducer. Since this most holy synod has learnt from what it has seen and heard, that the said John Hus is obstinate and incorrigible and as such does not desire to return to the bosom of holy mother the church, and is unwilling to abjure the heresies and errors which he has publicly defended and preached, this holy synod of Constance therefore declares and decrees that the same John Hus is to be deposed and degraded from the order of the priesthood and from the other orders held by him. It charges the reverend fathers in Christ, the archbishop of Milan and the bishops of Feltre Asti, Alessandria, Bangor and Lavour with duly carrying out the degradation in the presence of this most holy synod, in accordance with the procedure required by law.
and
This holy synod of Constance, seeing that God’s church has nothing more that it can do, relinquishes John Hus to the judgment of the secular authority and decrees that he is to be relinquished to the secular court.
The actions in other places, notably in England but not exclusive to the English, were much the same. If one was judged to be a heretic by whatever church was espoused by the government, one’s life could well be forfeit. In those times, heresy was treason when a state church was involved. The church, whether Protestant or Catholic, was complicit to the extent that it did not oppose (and, probably, approved) the execution of heretics.
I have gone on much further than my initial intentions for this post. I will look forward to reading your thoughts on this.
The Anglicans ordain Muslims now?