Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Historical Kingdom Christian Movements  /  The Lollards  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 4
Wycliffe criticized church wealth so strongly that he said the crown should forcibly seize church property, yet he “had no problem with kings and the nobility storing up treasures”; what does that selective moral concern reveal about how hard it is to let Jesus’ teaching on wealth judge our “side,” and where might we have similar blind spots today (church budgets, personal investments, national prosperity narratives)?
Another way to ask: Why was Wycliffe harsh on church wealth but okay with kings and nobles storing treasures? What does that show about how we excuse wealth on “our side,” and where might we do the same today?

Direct Answer Bercot uses Wycliffe to show how reformers can condemn “their opponent’s” wealth while excusing wealth on their own side, revealing a failure to embrace Jesus’ kingdom teaching that accumulating wealth is spiritually dangerous. The transcript suggests this is exactly where a movement can fall short of a true kingdom restoration.

Support from Transcript:

  • Wycliffe “very fiercely attacked the wealth of the Catholic Church” and taught “neither the clergy nor the church itself should own any property at all.”
  • He even urged state force: if the church wouldn’t hand over property, “the crown should forcibly take the properties from the church.”
  • Bercot draws the key contrast with Jesus’ kingdom: Wycliffe “was not ready to embrace Jesus' full teachings about don't accumulate wealth on earth.”
  • Selectivity: “He had no problem with kings and the nobility storing up treasures on earth. He didn't teach against that.”
  • Earlier, Bercot describes the kingdom value shift: wealth in Jesus’ kingdom is “a snare…can cause you to lose eternal life.”
Discussion Follow-ups The transcript doesn’t apply this to modern budgets or investments directly, but the principle is clear: it’s easy to call out institutional wealth while assuming personal or national wealth is morally neutral.

Jumpstarter 4 of 10
Back Questions Next