Preacher Jim Wallis: Jesus Would Not Approve of Trump's Anti-Christ Agenda

This "preacher" is a lightweight. He leads with a premise that is BS. He callas Trump a white nationalist. Trump is certainly a nationalist (America first) but that includes all Americans. His results have helped everyone, not just whites. This pastor is typical of the soft headed Christian that will embrace sin rather than call it out lest he get accused of being the salt of the earth.

This is not a theocracy. Trump is not the leader of the church, he is the leader of a Republic. The pastor's job is to teach Christ crucified and not to play nice with sinners to look soft and mushy. He is to preach repentance from sin and turning toward Christ. He is suggesting we vote for people that embrace abortion, the LGBT agenda and who view Christendom as "deplorable". , A party who refuse to enforce borders and national sovereignty etc. etc. etc. You can have this Caspar Milquetoast. He will be one of the luke warm to be spit out come that fateful day.

Christ wouldn't approve of a lot, actually.

Here's the problem... Christians (myself included) presumably follow the teachings of Christ, and by extension... the Apostles, the Hebrew prophets, etc., all under the "New Covenant" of forgiveness of (but not permission to) sin. The United States is not a 'Christian' nation in the sense that Iran is an Islamic Republic; in other words-our laws do not by necessity follow suit with the laws of God. Because of this, there are plenty of things protected by law in this country that, according to Christian doctrine, are in fact "sinful". In most cases, the Constitution itself (written and ratified by and large by Christians) has been used as the basis for removing prayer and religious teaching from public schools, permitting the sacrament of marriage to be applied to unions clearly forbidden by Scripture, and more indirectly, led to "openness" regarding a host of sinful practices... from extramarital sexuality to divorces of convenience. We're "free" in our country to eat, smoke, drink, and entertain ourselves literally to death. We've even defined the killing of an unborn child as a means of escaping the involved responsibilities as a "right".

None of that's really any different from how we've lived as a society for at least the last century... if not longer. The issue is that with increasing frequency, and along a broader spectrum, prevailing secular ideologies are (as I see it) gradually narrowing the boundaries within which the spiritual can be openly practiced. The Democratic Party has (again, in my opinion), over the decades, evolved to become the party that supports the "Progressive" ideology; pretty much a surrogate for Humanism. The result of this has been that the good works of traditional "liberalism"-to include liberty, charity, compassion, and equality have been inextricably linked to things deemed immoral by the Judeo-Christian belief system. By contrast, the Republican Party has, in order to survive, relied heavily on support from socially-conservative voters; predominantly Christians. This has inextricably linked "our" cause with principles that on the face of things, may seem to conflict with our morality.

Speaking as a Christian, Republican voter, I have to weigh the "greater good" from the "universal evil" within a secular, political system. I want to see the poor elevated-I don't believe socialism is the path. I desire the races to be seen as part of one race; the human race-I don't believe in demanding those living in the present should have to pay for the past. I want our nation to be a refuge for the displaced-I do not believe in allowing human monsters to enter our country without interdiction. I want peace-I do not think peace is found in being defenseless. I want freedom- I don't believe it is found in an all-encompassing, all-powerful state. I realize that in making these choices within our established government, I cannot vote for "Biblical law", a "state religion", or suppression of the rights of those of competing or non-existent faith.

That also means I may vote for someone who does not completely emulate, but whose policies most closely align with my principles.