Has the Church Become Politically Pragmatic?

By Michael Ware November 6, 2016

When we talk about Christians and politics, many become uncomfortable. There are those who believe that the Church should not be in political affairs. Either they are misinformed about the issue of the separation of Church and state, or they misunderstand Matthew chapter five.  In either case, we have seen a significant shift in the way Christians choose the people they will vote for politically. And a recent survey reveals how quickly thinking has changed.   Evangelical Focus reports......To Read More....

My Take - He asks the wrong question. The right question is "when have the chuches not been politically pragmatic?"

After the first century and the apostles died and everything changed.  Sectarian forces created splits,  which already started at the end of the first century.  While John, the last living apostle was still alive, the Sect of Nicolaus was condemned by him. After he passed, and the governing council set up in Jerusalem was dispersed -  I assume that happened when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E. - everything was a crap shoot.

The Council of Nicea was convened by Christain bishops in Bithynia,Turkey in 325 C.E. Who prisided over it? Roman Emperor Constantine, and it was he who decided what Christian doctrine on the Trinity would be.....and there is absolutly no evidence he was a baptized Christian at that time and only sketchy evidence he may have been baptized at his death.  Furthermore he reversed that position on more than one occasion when it was politically convenient, and the "church" went along with it. 

That pattern repeated with the Protestant churches over the centuries also.  Have there been people of strong faith and character who stood up to this kind of thing? Sure, but they either weren't in charge, or if they were, when they died those who took over became "politcally pragmatic".   The correct answer, as demonstrated by reality and history, is the "chruch" has "never" failed to ultimately become politcially pragmatic! 

But there's a question he fails to address.

He believes theological shifts have taken place allowing for people to believe God's standards are "flexible", then no matter what a person does all is forgiven because ethics are no longer taught in the churches. 

If that's true, and it certainly appears to be true overall - then, if they stand for nothing it really means they'll stand for anything.  Is that a clear demonstration of what the leaders of these organizations believe in?  The Democrats moral stands support many things condemned in the Bible, and they atheism has been made clear at one of their conventions where they booed God.  If that's so, and it is, then the other question we need to ask is:  How can a Christian be a Democrat and not be a heretic? And then we need to ask: What exactly do these chruches stand for?  And if they stand for nothing, anything or everything, then we absolutely need to ask:  Why do we need them?