Andrew Storm has recently posted an article: POLITICS is RUINING CHRISTIANITY

The article drew some very predictable responses that effectively show the validity of his main point, that an ugly hybrid, mixing the gospel with patriotism, has been created. Sadly that hybrid has become a significant expression of religion in America and is spreading around the “Western” world.

Clearly, living in this current world we can’t divorce ourselves entirely from the effects of national politics, but there’s a difference between our testimony having an effect on the political atmosphere around us and the growing reality that political dogma is becoming the testimony of so many Christians.

Any political attitudes and responses of Christians should be motivated by the truth of the gospel, however it is clear that the reverse is increasingly the case: that understanding of the gospel is becoming more and more influenced by the politics of the day.

See Andrew’s article here:


3 thoughts on “POLITICS is RUINING CHRISTIANITY by Andrew Strom

  1. http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/22.htm



    Beside the fact that Palin often makes statements with bizarre collections of words that don’t grammatically or sensibly go together in a sentence, the above links {the “answering” ones not meant to be an example of teaching with which I agree in whole of detail, such as the church beginning in Acts 2} look more closely at the verse referenced. I would add another possibility to those brought up in the article. Jesus may have been referring to Judas resorting to a violence of sorts, in that he involved the authorities who not only oppressed Judaism but would indeed put Jesus to death. Figuratively, the rest of the disciples having two swords could beat the one guy having a sword; they would be enough, even if they are not supposed to use them. As Jesus also told Judas (at dinner) to go on and do what he planned to do, Jesus may have also been referring earlier to him trading in good plans for violent (which in turn can be compared to anyone living “by” the sword).

  2. What I referred to above, Jesus telling Judas to go quickly to do what he was going to do, is John 13:27.

    This below came to mind when I was thinking about dying by the sword after using it “for” God:

    At the conclusion of the Council of Nicea, Constantine held a banquet which
    vividly demonstrated what had happened to the [community] of the One despised
    and rejected of men. At the banquet, Eusebius greatly praised [Constantine] the
    Emperor before the assembled leaders […]. Eusebius himself describes
    the proceedings: “…[.] The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle,
    were stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords. The
    men of God passed through the midst of them without fear, and went into the most
    private apartments of the royal edifice. Some of them were then admitted to the
    table of the emperor, and others took the places assigned to them on either
    side. It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ, and appeared more like
    a dream than a reality.” 9 [9. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus,
    op. cit., Bk. 4, Ch. 14, P.51-54, “A Historical View of the Council of Nicea,” Isaac Boyle, P.27]
    Eusebius is somewhat misleading. It is true that some of the Church leaders
    were brought into close relationship to the emperor, his private apartments,
    and his table — in time, such privileges became a measure of religious success —
    but it is highly doubtful that all the men of God walked through the circle of guards
    and soldiers without fear. The emperor intended the drawn swords to teach a lesson.
    In fact, Eusebius was more than misleading on issues related to the emperor or to the Jews.
    “As scholarship became more critical, however, historians began to look at the VC [De Vita Constantini,
    Eusebius’ Life of Constantine] more and more warily, until ultimately the great nineteenth-century rationalist
    Jakob Burckhardt angrily dismissed its author as ‘the first thoroughly dishonest historian
    of antiquity,’ ‘the most disgusting of all eulogists.’” 10 [10. H.A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine,
    A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial Orations, op. cit., P. 8]

    On the Passover controversy, the Council of Nicea had chosen an anti-Biblical course and
    demanded conformity to it. The swords were a way of indicating
    the necessity of conforming to the official decree.

    In convening the council, Constantine had already declared that whoever would
    disturb the unity of the Church was a “malignant foe” motivated by a
    “malevolent demon,” exposing God’s law* to “slander and detraction.” He
    had already declared that, “an internal sedition in the Church is, in my
    apprehension, more dangerous and formidable than any war, in which I can be
    engaged…and hoping that by my interference, a remedy might be applied to
    the evil, I sent for you all, without delay.” Constantine had achieved political victory
    by the sword, professing it to be in the name of the Lord. He was not about to trade in his weapons.
    He intended to use what had brought him victory in the Empire to achieve victory in the Church.


    This “Church” was not the community of Yeshua, but rather the consort of
    Constantine. It was not the bride of Messiah, but something wedded to Caesar.

    — Daniel Gruber, elijahnet.net

    * “God’s law” wasn’t God’s law but was whatever Eusebius and Constantine said it was.

Comments are closed.