"...the common law of Christendom" ?

Question

I've been reading Churchill's "The Birth of the Britain" and came across a passage on John Wyclif and the Lollards (the first British heresy). Cross-checking "Lollards" with the Catholic Encyclopaedia I came across a statement that in 1401 England passed a law granting the church the power to identify heretics, who were to be handed over to the state to be burned at the stake. The CE claimed this was "merely the application to England of the common law of Christendom."

In the case of the Lollards, they were burned for claiming the Eucharist was nothing more than "a mouthful of bread".

That got me wondering about today's christianity.

Given the power the church had over the state, and through the state: the people, to terrorize people into supporting the state and church through the threat of the stake, why would you favour an end to the division between church and state? Who would you wish to see burned: Unbelievers? Heretics? And who should judge them on Earth?

When Christians are in a majority, and the vast majority of politicians elected are also Christian, how does one argue that one lives in a country where the separation of church and state exists?

Catholic Mom: "cultural traditions" like burning heretics?

Cliff Potts: The experience of the Foundign Fathers is not analogous to today's christians. Then they recalled persecution acutely. Today they are the persecutors (homosexuality, for example). Christians have the "power" to pass a Constitutional Amendment to institute a state religion, and Christians seem to be demonstrating a desire for just that.

Nemrod: All of your arguments were used by a church that instructed the state to support the burning of heretics.

Answer 1

The end of the foundational church/state divide seems to be the dream of many fundamentalists, especially in Bible Belt US, because what is at work in their mindset and ruling worldviews is a mentality similar to that of islamist extremists or hindu extremists (the latter advocate for what they call "saffronization" of society). In short, such a mentality maintains that since the state is one of the orders created by God it should be ruled directly by God. Such a direct connection is possible only if God annointed spokespersons hold the reins. The Vatican is a case in point, but also the economic and political clout of the right wing of the evangelical spectrum in Bush-dom.

Answer 2

I do not wish anyone burned at the stake, even though many false religions leaders may deserve it. Most true Christians today acknowledge the problems of the Church of the past and how the Church promoted religion. True Christians today promote a relationship with Christ rather than a religion.

I believe their are many false religions today that do not center around God or show that the only way to him is through the blood of Jesus Christ.

As far as the seperation of Church and state, I agree in a seperation of the state from the Church but not the other way around.

The Church has nothing to do with buildings or property, the Church is the people, Gods people, the Bride of Christ.

The government should be the same, it should be the people. The government should serve the people and be run by the people.

God should rule all the people, they should all love God. I know many would think me foolish for saying they should love God, but that does not make it any less true. God made everything that was made, he loved us enough to send his only Son to die for our sins. His Son watches over us and interceeds on our behalf all the time.

God should be in the people, the people should run the government, the government should serve the people in a Christian way. God should be in the government because Godly people should be our leaders.

I would not support a state sponsered religion, I would support a
God sponsered state. Our founding fathers, even some who were not Christians said that our country would be better off if we elected Christian leaders.

Answer 3

Personal belief notwithstanding, the United States is a nation where no single religious expression has the power to suppress another religious expression and all religious expression can survive a flourish in peace and protection. The exact question you ask,"Who would you wish to see burn?" is exactly why there is no official state church in the United States of America. The enforcement of the edicts of the state church created a propensity towards abuse. While we don't see it, having not experienced it, our founders did remember it all to well from England, and decided that such a marriage was bad for the church, and for the state.

Answer 4

Any Church should have the privelege to point out false teaching, however people do not have the right to judge other people. God says so Himself.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Church and State is "a whole 'nother" issue. By definition they are seperate entities, but that is no reason why we can't uphold basic morals and cultural traditions!

Answer 5

Thankfully, I live in the USA where our constitution separates the church and state. I could care less about any religious "law" being forced upon my life. Religion is the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of humanity.

Answer 6

As a Christian I have never heard a church leader making any effort to have a state church. Yes there are many Christians who cast thier votes based on what they believe. i would not condemn a peace activist for voting for a candidate that had a position in favor of peace. We believe that abortion is murder so we vote for candidates that have that view. If you had to choose between a candidate that supported pedophilia and another that was against would you seek to legislate your morality, persecuting those that were just seeking love in an unconventional way. Or would you see pedophilia as unhealthy for all involved. Well that is the perspective of many Christians that see the homosexual lifestyle as a self destructive one, one that should not be encourage. I am the first to admit that many of my faith have failed to hear what the Bible says about love and improperly combine Biblical hatred for evil with personal self-righteous disgust. I, in the sense of familial love not erotic, loved my uncle who was a practicing homosexual. I prayed til the day he died of aids for the opportunity to help him to freedom. I have been in the castro in San Francisco with a group of Christians as we prayed asking God to forgive His church for how Christians have not acted in Christian love. Back to the state church issue, I have only heard that mentioned by those that want to demonize followers of Jesus. Usually Christians are far more concerned with the increasing hostility to any public display of the Christian faith (see Persecution by David Limbaugh for irrefutable proof of this.) and how immorallity is spreading and encrouching more and more all the time. It used to be that you had to look hard to find the immoral. Now it is hard to miss.

Oh and by the way if you are not going to condemn athiests for those killed by Hitler, Stalin and Mao. If you are not going to criticize American Muslems for the actions of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. Then don't condemn Bible believing Christians for the actions of those who put on a religious veneer while they pursue sinful ungodly actions. If Billy Graham asked for one burning at the stake it would be quoted in all the papers. Pat Robertson, known for speaking without considering all the impact of what he has said has never been quoted saying such. By the way the current church looks to the example of John Wycliff not his persecutors. Jesus was crucified, the Apostles were martyred, the Old Testament Prophets usually killed. Most often by those who as I stated earlier put on a religious veneer to cover their sinful actions.

Answer 7

We need the separation of church and state. The same kind of thing happened in Jesus' time.