Do you think the Reformation was a way of putting the Church in its place?

[c659smith]

2ndGen,

Greetings, my brother in Christ.

You wrote:

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:

and

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.

My answer to the question here Pastor is the fact that the Church of England was created and based upon selfishness and murder. The Catholic Church was persecuted and many of it’s members tortured and killed in order for the Church of England to be created.

And argument may be that the Catholic Church was guilty at times of similar atrocities but that is not how the Church was founded and these were committed by some mis-guided men

What was done by King Henry the 8th is exclusively how the Church of England was created. Even Shakespear fought back along with his parents and children. Good reading on the historical facts on how and why the Church of England was formed.

King Henry was insistent that people kneel before him. Kind of sounds like how the early Christians were tortured and killed and the reason why. Woud not kneel before Ceasar.

 

[cyberjacques]

2ndGen,
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.

There’s a huge difference, though. With both Constantine and the Hebrews, while their respective religions did become the official state religions, neither one ever required that everyone convert, and neither one ever outlawed other religions. They didn’t torture anyone to death for refusing to bow to the king’s religious authority. Constantine never pretended to have any religious authority. He wasn’t even present at the Council of Nicea, which was his idea, because he recognized that he had no religious authority. He simply recognized, as an emperor familiar with running a gigantic empire, that consistency was important, so he suggested to Rome that a council to solidify and permanently record doctrinal consistency would be a good idea. Rome agreed.

With the various Protestant religions that became official state religions, people who didn’t submit to said religion were horribly persecuted, as has already been stated. See the difference?

 

[2ndGen]

There’s a huge difference, though. With both Constantine and the Hebrews, while their respective religions did become the official state religions, neither one ever required that everyone convert, and neither one ever outlawed other religions. They didn’t torture anyone to death for refusing to bow to the king’s religious authority. Constantine never pretended to have any religious authority. He wasn’t even present at the Council of Nicea, which was his idea, because he recognized that he had no religious authority. He simply recognized, as an emperor familiar with running a gigantic empire, that consistency was important, so he suggested to Rome that a council to solidify and permanently record doctrinal consistency would be a good idea. Rome agreed.

With the various Protestant religions that became official state religions, people who didn’t submit to said religion were horribly persecuted, as has already been stated. See the difference?

And Constantine clearly stated that he had no religious authority, but would be The Church’s enforcer of whatever The Bishops came to agreement upon.

He allowed all religions (even pagans) to worship freely and without persecution. Granted, he had his favorite, but he was extremely smart about “how” he ran the show.

That’s why Catholicicm would go on to evangelize the world. Constantine was Paulian in “how” he personally came to Christ.