Promise
to the Persecuted
By
Stephen Terry
Commentary
for the September 15, 2012 Sabbath School Lesson
“Dear
friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you,
as though something strange were happening to you.” 1 Peter 4:12. NIV
In the early 15th century, over a hundred
years before Martin Luther opposed the Vatican, a Catholic priest named Jan Hus
opposed abuses by the church and its clergy. He also advanced the cause of the
Bible translator, John Wycliffe. Partly for the former, but mostly for the
latter, he paid with his life. On July 6, 1415, he was fastened to a stake in
the town square of Konstanz in what is now Southern Germany. Wood and straw
were piled high around him, even up to his chin, in order to make a thorough
work of burning him. When the fire was lit, with the approval of Emperor
Sigismund, Hus perished in the flames while singing hymns as long as he was
able.
Hus, a priest, was Bohemian and found opportunity to
breathe light and life into religious practice because of the political climate
within the church during his life. The Roman Catholic Church had two popes, one
reigning in Rome and another reigning in Avignon in Southern France. At this time,
Hus’s sovereign sought a position of neutrality between the two popes. We
remember that king today in the well-known Christmas carol “Good King
Wenceslaus.” During this window of opportunity, Hus was made rector of the
University of Prague. He continued, as he had done before, to promote the ideas
of Wycliffe and opposed indulgences and clerical corruption.
The Catholic Church, embroiled in schism with some supporting
Avignon and others supporting Rome, attempted to heal the fracture by convening
a Council at Pisa where they disavowed both popes and elected a third pope,
Alexander V. Those included in this third papal succession are often referred
to as the “antipopes.” Sensing opportunity, Hus, his royal protector and their
followers transferred their loyalties to this new pope. However, this pope
began a crusade against the claimed heresies of Wycliffe. He was unable to see
them through as he died the very next year, but his successor, John XXIII, continued
the crusade and consequently, the election of the antipopes only added to the
volatility in the church. In an effort to impose uniformity of belief, Emperor
Sigismund convened a council at Konstanz. Since much of the controversy was
over the teachings of Wycliffe Hus was presenting and in order to assure Hus’s
presence, he offered him a guarantee of safe conduct. Possibly because King
Wenceslaus was Sigismund’s brother, Hus felt he could rely on the emperor’s
promise.
The Archbishop of Konstanz was loyal to Rome and not the
antipopes. He would certainly have no sympathy for those who allied themselves
with them. Perhaps in a contest to see who could be more truly Catholic, Rome
was also fighting the teachings of Wycliffe. If that were the case, in an
atmosphere where each faction is trying to outdo the other in their zeal for
the church, Hus had little hope of finding a sympathetic hearing for his views
regarding excesses within Catholicism. After a protracted trial that eventually
included imprisonment in the Archbishop’s castle, Hus was found guilty of
preaching the heresies of Wycliffe and was condemned to be burned at the stake.
A paper hat condemning him as an arch-heretic was placed on his head, and he
was marched to the square and just as rhetorical flames had burned hot during
his trial, real flames accomplished what the words alone could not.
In spite of these attempts to overcome schism and consolidate
power within the church, Hus’s martyrdom galvanized opposition to Rome in
Bohemia. In spite of four papal crusades to wipe out the followers of Hus,
every crusade was defeated and the Czech Republic became mostly non-Catholic.
While the Catholic Church has achieved more growth in recent times, it is in
decline, today, with only about 10% of the population claiming to be Roman
Catholic per the Czech Statistical Office. [i]
Many Protestants today see Hus as an early hero of the
reformation. However, he may not have understood
the modern opposition to the Catholic Church for no other reason than that it
is Catholic. While each of these Protestant denominations may feel themselves
the proper successor to Hus, it is unknown whether he would have felt
comfortable choosing one denomination over another or would have rejected them
all as schismatic. Maybe his position would be more in line with those who have
been reformers but remained within the organizational structure of the church.
That tradition was very early seen in the Christian church. For example, it can
be seen in Paul’s confrontation with Peter (See Galatians 2:11) and his appeal
to what has become known as the First Jerusalem Council over the issue of
circumcision. (See Acts 15)
Hus was a persecuted martyr, but he lived five centuries
ago. While we may view persecution as something in the distant past, we are faced
with statements from the Bible that trouble our complacency. Paul wrote to
Timothy, “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will
be persecuted.” 2 Timothy 3:12, NIV If this is the case, why are there no Hus’s
being burned in the town square today? We may feel we are more
enlightened today and do not burn people at the stake for their beliefs. But
are we more enlightened, or simply more subtle in how we oppress those we
disagree with?
Persecution could be seen as a three-step process. First,
we are confronted with information that is new to us. Second, we judge that what
we see is false. Third, we act upon that judgment to eliminate the error. On
the surface, this is something we do many times every day without it rising to
the level of persecution. For example, we find a mistake in our bank statement,
and we work with the bank to eliminate the mistake, but this is not
persecution. So how does the process rise to that level?
Since we are confronted with new information almost
continually in our present digital age yet persecution is not universal, it
probably does not happen at the first step. However, the second step is fraught
with possibilities for going awry. We are so poor at judging that Jesus warned
us about it. He said, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same
way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will
be measured to you.” Matthew 7:1-2, NIV
The problem is not in making judgments about
information. The problem comes when we elevate that judgment to be about people
instead of information. When we begin to reject individuals as false instead of
the information they may have brought us, then the individual becomes the
problem, and we may feel the need to eliminate them rather than the false
information. This is the mistake that was made regarding Hus. Eliminating him
did not eliminate the problem. In fact it only made the problem more
entrenched, because it eliminated the best avenue for communicating about it.
When we make problems in society and the church about people instead of issues,
we are only a hairbreadth away from the excesses of the Inquisition or even Adolf
Hitler’s “Final Solution.” It is far too easy to extend the problem with a
person to their entire people group. Perhaps this is why warning us about
judging others was so important to Jesus.
Today we often see the same processes repeated within
the church. We see disputes over music used in the church, and we see those disputes
evolve from being about the music to being about the people. The attitude is
expressed that if only so-and-so were no longer around, we could have the music
we desire. If those who have such attitudes are in positions of power within
the church, they easily move from such statements to actual persecution of
those who do not agree with them. If possible they prevent them from serving on
nominating committees or holding any influential church office, and if it is in
their power, they would drive them from the fellowship in the belief that doing
so would eliminate the problem. This is not the spirit of Christ, it is another
spirit. (See Luke 9:53-55)
When we indulge that other spirit and make people the
problem, we are setting our understanding on a papal throne of control over
others’ lives. We ignore Jesus’ warnings about judgment. We also ignore that
the judging of people is reserved to Jesus. He told us, “Moreover, the Father
judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son.” John 5:22, NIV If
all judgment of others is reserved to Jesus, how much will that leave for us? The
correct answer seems to be “none.”
Although we often acknowledge that we have difficulty
with control over our own lives and often do what we know we should not, we can
fail to see the implications of this when we try to assert control over the thoughts
and lives of others. Experience with exercising has taught me that if I
struggle with a smaller weight, a larger one will only be more difficult. Therefore
if I struggle with controlling my own life, how many more lives will I be able
to successfully control? My personal need is to give control of my life to
Jesus who can handle it well. Shouldn’t this be the answer for others, also?
Shouldn’t I let God handle them rather than trying to do it for Him?
If I cannot allow that to happen then I may find myself
in a position I did not expect. As Gamaliel said “Therefore, in the present
case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or
activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not
be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
Acts 5:38-39, NIV Emperor
Sigismund and the Archbishop of Konstanz decided that they would not allow their
ability to control others to be compromised and decided that eliminating Hus
would restore control and uniformity of religious practice. History shows they
were wrong. Perhaps we can do better today.
