V
Vincent_L
Guest
Last night I was sitting around with a few maps and timelines and I had one of those “Eureka” moments, which is when I discover something most of the world already knows, or should anyway.
Why would the civil rulers decide to publicly execute John Huss in 1417 ?
It has nothing to do with theology…
At the time Huss was in Vienna preaching the Ottomans ( Islamic Invaders ) had made Prauge and were marching onward. They were about 500 miles out. In distances more familiar to us, they were at the Southern TN border and advancing in the direction of Chicago where Huss was.
At this time Huss was teaching, among various theological points, it was wrong for the church to fight against the invaders and folks should instead devote themselves to praying for the conversion of the advancing invaders and for the halt. He was also teaching the main source of funding for the defense and battle against the invaders should be stopped. He also taught the Church ( the ones trying to coordinate an defense by keeping all the various european rulers from fighting among themselves and instead focusing on the incoming invaders ) was bad and was the real enemy.
The supporters of Huss were preparing and did rise against the empire in revolt The chaos that ensued drew men and material away from the front against the Turks both from among the Hussites and those among the empire. They were the proverbial “fifth column”.
It is no wonder his movement was put down with vigor. The rulers were not worried about the rest of his theology but mainly about the eastern front.
As a result the Invaders within a few decades after the death of Huss were able to make 100 miles or so from Vienna. Unity may have stopped them sooner.
From the view of the rulers this was a simple case of survival and defense of the continent as a whole, regardless of what the theologians wanted to argue about.
If the invaders were in TN advancing on Chicago the time to stand shoulder to shoulder and unite would be there, whether one agreed with the theology of the leadership at the time or not. Anything else was defeat at the hands of the Islamic Invaders.
I’m sure someone besides me has made this point, but I haven’t seen it. Instead we get into finer points of theology and/or talking about it as if the whole thing were a rhetorical excercise and forget what was really at stake.
Why would the civil rulers decide to publicly execute John Huss in 1417 ?
It has nothing to do with theology…
At the time Huss was in Vienna preaching the Ottomans ( Islamic Invaders ) had made Prauge and were marching onward. They were about 500 miles out. In distances more familiar to us, they were at the Southern TN border and advancing in the direction of Chicago where Huss was.
At this time Huss was teaching, among various theological points, it was wrong for the church to fight against the invaders and folks should instead devote themselves to praying for the conversion of the advancing invaders and for the halt. He was also teaching the main source of funding for the defense and battle against the invaders should be stopped. He also taught the Church ( the ones trying to coordinate an defense by keeping all the various european rulers from fighting among themselves and instead focusing on the incoming invaders ) was bad and was the real enemy.
The supporters of Huss were preparing and did rise against the empire in revolt The chaos that ensued drew men and material away from the front against the Turks both from among the Hussites and those among the empire. They were the proverbial “fifth column”.
It is no wonder his movement was put down with vigor. The rulers were not worried about the rest of his theology but mainly about the eastern front.
As a result the Invaders within a few decades after the death of Huss were able to make 100 miles or so from Vienna. Unity may have stopped them sooner.
From the view of the rulers this was a simple case of survival and defense of the continent as a whole, regardless of what the theologians wanted to argue about.
If the invaders were in TN advancing on Chicago the time to stand shoulder to shoulder and unite would be there, whether one agreed with the theology of the leadership at the time or not. Anything else was defeat at the hands of the Islamic Invaders.
I’m sure someone besides me has made this point, but I haven’t seen it. Instead we get into finer points of theology and/or talking about it as if the whole thing were a rhetorical excercise and forget what was really at stake.
