Robert wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:04 pmI can not for the life of me figure out why a Mennonite forum with Mennonites dominating the forum can not pause and be respectful for a few days at the loss of life and the tragic way it happened.
That’s what I want too—to pause, grieve, and lament the tragic loss of a brother in Christ who was killed while sharing his faith.
At the same time, I think much of what people have been reacting to in this thread isn’t grief itself, but the political and cultural battles that were closely tied to his ministry. And that’s where I struggle. On a Mennonite forum, it’s worth remembering that Christian nationalism is about as opposite of our Mennonite faith as anything I can think of.
So for me, honoring his memory means holding space for grief right now, while also remembering later to name clearly what belongs to the Gospel and what belongs to politics—so that we don’t confuse them.
If we want to make room for grief, we should use it for grief. Using it for other things takes away from that.
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Something I’ve been wondering: what does it mean to grieve someone we never actually knew?
When a family member or a member of our congregation dies, the loss is personal, and grief feels direct. But when a public figure dies, especially in a shocking way, our response feels different. Is it really grief? Or is it something related but not quite the same—like sorrow at the violence, or sadness at what they represented, or even just the weight of seeing others grieve?
What do you think? How is grief for a public figure similar to, or different from, the grief we experience in our personal relationships? And how do we tell the difference between grief and other responses like shock, admiration, or disagreement?
3 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Southerner wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 7:39 pm
May I highlight something??? Both you and Robert said "Shut up" a few posts back. My parents never permitted me to say "shut up" as a child, so I took notice of it in your post.
A brother in Christ was killed as he was sharing his faith and working to draw others to Christ. He was not doing it as I would do it, but he was doing it in a way that was drawing many younger people to faith.
Charles James Kirk was born on Oct. 14, 1993, in Arlington Heights, a suburb of Chicago. His father, Robert, an architect, and his mother, Kimberly, were active in conservative circles — his father was a major donor to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.
“I started listening to Rush when I was a junior in high school,” Charlie Kirk told The New York Times Magazine, referring to the right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh. “Listening, I was, like, ‘This guy is unbelievable!’”
In 2012, as a senior in high school, he wrote an opinion article for the conservative website Breitbart News criticizing the prominence of liberal economists like Paul Krugman in his textbooks. The article led to an appearance on Fox News, which in turn drew the attention of Bill Montgomery, a restaurateur and early supporter of the right-wing Tea Party movement.
After Mr. Kirk explained his vision for bringing fresh conservative ideas to young voters, Mr. Montgomery urged him to skip college and start immediately. Mr. Kirk was accepted at Baylor University and briefly attended Harper College, in Palatine, Ill., but soon took Mr. Montgomery’s advice and dropped out.
He founded Turning Point USA with support from Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Kirk’s father, who came up with the group’s name. He talked his way into the 2012 Republican National Convention, where he ran into Mr. Friess and gave him an impromptu pitch. Mr. Friess sent him a $10,000 check a few days later.
Originally based outside Chicago, Mr. Kirk relocated to the Phoenix area, where he spent the next decade building the Turning Point empire; eventually, his headquarters encompassed five buildings, several named for prominent donors.
He was not initially a Trump supporter; during the 2016 Republican primary, he first supported two other candidates, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and then Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. But he was won over to the Trump campaign after a meeting with Donald Jr., who brought him on as his social media coordinator.
He married Erika Frantzve, a former Miss Arizona USA, in 2021. His survivors include his wife and their two children. Citing their desire for privacy, the Kirks did not reveal their children’s names.
Although he rarely touched on religion during his early years, Mr. Kirk increasingly embraced evangelical Christianity following the pandemic. He grew critical of gay rights and the separation of church and state, and began to cite Bible verses as support for his views.
To Mr. Kirk, Mr. Trump’s re-election demonstrated that his form of conservatism had moved from the fringes to the mainstream. He spoke frequently of an “American Renaissance.”
Others seemed to agree: This spring, Mr. Kirk was the first guest to appear on a new podcast hosted by Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California.
And he continued to build his support among young voters with his “American Comeback” tour, which brought him to Utah Valley University on Wednesday. About 3,000 onlookers cheered as he took the stage. He sat down and began to speak. Then came the sound of a gunshot.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 9:15 am
Something I’ve been wondering: what does it mean to grieve someone we never actually knew?
When a family member or a member of our congregation dies, the loss is personal, and grief feels direct. But when a public figure dies, especially in a shocking way, our response feels different. Is it really grief? Or is it something related but not quite the same—like sorrow at the violence, or sadness at what they represented, or even just the weight of seeing others grieve?
What do you think? How is grief for a public figure similar to, or different from, the grief we experience in our personal relationships? And how do we tell the difference between grief and other responses like shock, admiration, or disagreement?
Very good questions. I think many times when something like this happens to a very public figure, we feel profound sadness and sorrow, for those who loved the individual who was killed. I listened to Erika Kirk's speech at a college event, from several years ago, on "Godly Womanhood". It was well worth my time to listen to. She used the stories of Ruth, Esther, Hannah, Sarah, Deborah, Elizabeth and Mary the mother of Jesus, as examples for young women today. My heart breaks for her and her two young children. Is that grief or empathy? Not sure.
P.11: i posted a video from AMIR ODOM last year.
i appreciate his views.
i’m astonished to learn how influential Charlie Kirk was IN REAL LIFE to the several conservative black voices i enjoy.
They have pictures+videos, personal memories of him. How did i miss this?
i’m astonished MANY are like me, barely aware of Charlie Kirk. The power of msm??!!
i have long wondered if the huge UNorganized numbers of conservatives were more than the reported “half” of voters?
The response suggests so. As well as big numbers of people who don’t vote, for various reasons, not just faith convictions.
That’s the “trick” of political organization.
For minority numbers to acquire outsized voices, to dominate majorities. Typically beginning with good intentions.
Eventually running off the rails.
Humans can be counted on for exploitation. Jesus knows.
Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk / 55min
Description:
In this video we’re going to be discussing the most common things that are being said about Charlie Kirk
and apply nuance and context to it all.
I am forever thankful for what Charlie Kirk has done for me early in my career and thankful for his legacy.
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 - Intro
10:58 - On Second Amendment
12:48 - On Empathy
15:42 - On Gay People
17:58 - On Trans People
24:21 - On Racism
28:21 - On Affirmative Action
30:58 - On Critical Race Theory
34:56 - On Illegal Immigration
39:12 - On Abortion
44:22 - Charlie’s Why
49:48 - Liberal Threats
50:55 - Leaving The Left
52:29 - My Thoughts
Please don’t presume i’m now a CK acolyte. Not likely.
i appreciate much of what i’m seeing. It will take me time to process, starting from near-zero.
i view him, first, as a young man, evidently with strong faith, “but of course” still young in faith.
i’m sorry he wasn’t allowed to continue to grow on earth.
i don’t expect every word he uttered to be perfection.
he was a work in progress, as we all are, until our final breaths.
i don’t believe in creating sacred cows.
the world is in need of Truth and prayer.
0 x
i’m perfectly comfortable with an older, wiser, more docile Trump.
”Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.” Robert Martz
But what should be equally concerning to us is how our nation responds to violent incidents like these. Most Americans are in shock, grieving, and rightly concerned for the future of our nation. Yet there are outliers on both ends of the ideological spectrum who seem inclined to assign a deeper meaning to Kirk’s murder—one that instrumentalizes it to galvanize further support for their respective camps and causes.
On the far left, some talk as if Kirk deserved what happened to him for his past comments on subjects like race, sexuality, guns, and even empathy, which critics have deemed deeply dehumanizing. Kirk is someone who died on the hill he chose and whose death can thus be weaponized against his own rhetoric and ideology. By contrast, some on the far right speak of Kirk’s death as advancing a holy cause in enemy territory. Kirk is a slain saint and hero whose murder is a rallying cry and call to arms for conservatives and Christians like him. In short, in a mutual display of selective outrage and empathy, the far left blames Kirk’s death on the right and the far right blames his death on the left.
Ironically, these impulses draw from the same source and therefore cause the same effect by casting Kirk as a scapegoat. In each case, Kirk’s murder is assigned a kind of sacred significance that unites each faction around their respective ideologies—in such a way that his death becomes ammunition for further partisan violence.
2 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
But what should be equally concerning to us is how our nation responds to violent incidents like these. Most Americans are in shock, grieving, and rightly concerned for the future of our nation. Yet there are outliers on both ends of the ideological spectrum who seem inclined to assign a deeper meaning to Kirk’s murder—one that instrumentalizes it to galvanize further support for their respective camps and causes.
On the far left, some talk as if Kirk deserved what happened to him for his past comments on subjects like race, sexuality, guns, and even empathy, which critics have deemed deeply dehumanizing. Kirk is someone who died on the hill he chose and whose death can thus be weaponized against his own rhetoric and ideology. By contrast, some on the far right speak of Kirk’s death as advancing a holy cause in enemy territory. Kirk is a slain saint and hero whose murder is a rallying cry and call to arms for conservatives and Christians like him. In short, in a mutual display of selective outrage and empathy, the far left blames Kirk’s death on the right and the far right blames his death on the left.
Ironically, these impulses draw from the same source and therefore cause the same effect by casting Kirk as a scapegoat. In each case, Kirk’s murder is assigned a kind of sacred significance that unites each faction around their respective ideologies—in such a way that his death becomes ammunition for further partisan violence.
Incorrect analysis. On the “far right”, they were mostly critical of Charlie Kirk because he was pro-Israel.
It is certainly true he is a slain martyr whose main offense was sharing his faith on public college campuses. I think part of the grief we feel is that it’s plain as day it’s no longer safe to do that. Most of Kirk’s message wasn’t political; he said he thinks it’s a good idea to get married and raise a family. It is amazing that saying this could be so controversial.
JohnH wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 11:54 amIt is certainly true he is a slain martyr whose main offense was sharing his faith on public college campuses. I think part of the grief we feel is that it’s plain as day it’s no longer safe to do that. Most of Kirk’s message wasn’t political; he said he thinks it’s a good idea to get married and raise a family. It is amazing that saying this could be so controversial.
I don't think we know why he was shot yet. The shooter may be a random crazy or he may have some particular issue with Kirk. We will probably find out with time.
To me, Turning Point USA does seem more political than religious. This is how they describe themselves:
JOIN US on the frontlines of the American Culture War by becoming a member of Turning Point USA’s 1776 Society! Turning Point is the leading voice in America for conservatism and our nation’s founding principles. We play OFFENSE with a sense of URGENCY to win the American Culture War! The unwavering support of our generous donors—and especially members of the 1776 Society—is critical to accomplishing our mission. With more 1776 Society members, we will continue to grow our movement and promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government at a scale never seen before!
I think that's the part that is controversial. And especially the way that they interpret some of those phrases in practice. But we should not hate or shoot controversial people.
I feel fear too. We should be able to speak freely — politically and religiously — without worrying about violence. This killing is yet another reminder that partisan hatred in our country is spinning out of control, and that should grieve all of us.
And it’s a reminder to watch our own hearts, to be careful not to add to that cycle of hate ourselves.
Last edited by Bootstrap on Sat Sep 13, 2025 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
TPUSA is obviously a political organization focused on causing certain types of societal change.
Charlie Kirk himself seemed to spend the majority of his time talking about non political things, though, which is why I think he had such broad appeal.
Jesus knows.