You have this backwards. Politics should play NO role in religious decisions. Religious decisions should play a role in politics. Paul certainly didn't worry about politics when he stood up to the Jerusalem Council. You're suppose to do what is right, not worry about politics.
Rome isn't evil. There are some good things from the Vatican. They have beautiful artwork.
Well stated Harley. In the History of Christianity by Paul Johnson, he states that Paul was not exactly enthralled with the 'center' party in Jerusalem, nor them with him, and if James was our Lord's brother, imagine the element that adds to the whole thing?
Unfortunately, the politics started too soon after our Saviour's death, but it seems to me everyone had to see that coming, as Christ left a human church as well as a Divine one.
From Schaff's History of Christianity:
"The conversion of Paul marks not only a turning-point in his personal history, but also an important epoch in the history of the apostolic church, and consequently in the history of mankind. It was the most fruitful event since the miracle of Pentecost, and secured the universal victory of Christianity.The transformation of the most dangerous persecutor into the most successful promoter of Christianity is nothing less than a miracle of divine grace. It rests on the greater miracle of the resurrection of Christ. Both are inseparably connected; without the resurrection the conversion would have been impossible, and on the other hand the conversion of such a man and with such results is one of the strongest proofs of the resurrection.
The bold attack of Stephen—the forerunner of Paul—upon the hard, stiff-necked Judaism which had crucified the Messiah, provoked a determined and systematic attempt on the part of the Sanhedrin to crucify Jesus again by destroying his church. In this struggle for life and death Saul the Pharisee, the bravest and strongest of the rising rabbis, was the willing and accepted leader.
After the martyrdom of Stephen and the dispersion of the congregation of Jerusalem, he proceeded to Damascus in suit of the fugitive disciples of Jesus, as a commissioner of the Sanhedrin, a sort of inquisitor-general, with full authority and determination to stamp out the Christian rebellion, and to bring all the apostates he could find, whether they were men or women, in chains to the holy city to be condemned by the chief priests.
Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world, known in the days of Abraham, and bursts upon the traveller like a vision of paradise amidst a burning and barren wilderness of sand; it is watered by the never-failing rivers Abana and Pharpar (which Naaman of old preferred to all the waters of Israel), and embosomed in luxuriant gardens of flowers and groves of tropical fruit trees; hence glorified by Eastern poets as "the Eye of the Desert."
But a far higher vision than this earthly paradise was in store for Saul as he approached the city. A supernatural light from heaven, brighter than the Syrian sun, suddenly flashed around him at midday, and Jesus of Nazareth, whom he persecuted in his humble disciples, appeared to him in his glory as the exalted Messiah, asking him in the Hebrew tongue: "Shaûl, Shaûl, why persecutest thou Me?363 It was a question both of rebuke and of love, and it melted his heart. He fell prostrate to the ground. He saw and heard, he trembled and obeyed, he believed and rejoiced. As he rose from the earth he saw no man. Like a helpless child, blinded by the dazzling light, he was led to Damascus, and after three days of blindness and fasting he was cured and baptized—not by Peter or James or John, but—by one of the humble disciples whom he had come to destroy. The haughty, self-righteous, intolerant, raging Pharisee was changed into an humble, penitent, grateful, loving servant of Jesus. He threw away self-righteousness, learning, influence, power, prospects, and cast in his lot with a small, despised sect at the risk of his life. If there ever was an honest, unselfish, radical, and effective change of conviction and conduct, it was that of Saul of Tarsus. He became, by a creative act of the Holy Spirit, a "new creature in Christ Jesus."
This tells what I think is the reason for St. Paul's independence and love of freedom. There is not another Christian writer, priest, pastor, rector, vicar, etc. who so joyously imparts the Good News to his congregation. When St. Paul died, decades elapsed and the corralling (necessary or not) of the Faith began, the freedom in Christ, that he so wanted his congregation to keep so close to their breast was lost to exigencies.
How naive. Politics "SHOULD" play no role in religious decisions? That totally disregards the fact that God made us social creatures. We are not created in isolation of others. The Church, too, being compared to the Mystical Body of Christ, is ALSO a social body of men. That is how God created us. Men have always and will continue to disagree on such things as interpretation of Scriptures and what is to be done about the current crisis, whatever that might be.
The Secular and the Religious are intertwined - though they are separate fields. Christ said "give to Caesar what is Caesar and give to God what is God's" while also saying "you are the light of the world - a city on a hill cannot be hidden". We are in the world but not of the world. As a result, politics is part and parcel of the life of men. Can anyone reading the Acts of Apostles not detect this among Christians? Have you not read the 2 letters of Paul to the Corinthians?
As to Paul's supposed "purity" from such things as politics, sorry to burst your bubble, but he was just as human as the rest of us.
"For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters. For [his] letters, say they, [are] weighty and powerful; but [his] bodily presence [is] weak, and [his] speech contemptible. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such [will we be] also in deed when we are present. For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. But we will not boast of things without [our] measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you." 2 Cor 10:8-13
Paul is "politic-ing" against those "superapostles" that are in opposition to him, refering first to the authority given to him. He does not desire to terrify by letter - but he has previously threatened them to come "as with a stick to beat them". What is interesting is that no Apostle actually refers to Paul as an "Apostle". I can imagine that this gave Paul an inferiority complex and finds it necessary to defend his ministry against others.
In an earlier letter to these divisive Corinthians, he literally excommunicates the sexual deviant in 1 Cor 5. He displays his power over the community. The community understands and accepts his power to make such judgments. Thus, again, we see politics, not only his call to cut out the divisiveness, but to cast out a member of deviant sexual morals.
Since we all know that Calvinists are above such political machinations (LOL!), one can only wonder what was going through Calvin's head when he burned Servetus at the stake in 1553. Or why one group of Protestants expelled another group of Protestants out of England to the New World...
Oh, the hypocrisy. Put a man in power, and you have the potential to abuse it. Regardless of religious affiliation. Catholicism is not the cause, man's fallen nature is behind this. Politics will always have an influence on religious decisions.
regards
Here's a link to a fascinating commentary on Calvin and +John Chrysostomos. I never knew any of this. It leads me to wonder, however, if Calvin and at least some of the Reformers were so enamored of The Fathers, why they didn't simply become Orthodox? I have referred before to the letters of the Thubingen divines to Pat. Jeremias II and his responses. That exchange simply became, at least on the Lutheran side, argumentative and contentious, as if they refused to accept that the East might have a clue about what the eastern Fathers had written. From what little I can see of Calvin, he didn't feel that way. Any ideas?
By the way, here's a link to a very interesting article on this subject:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/religious_studies/SBL2005/Ward.htm