Mourning Charlie Kirk - for Anabaptists

[R7ehr]

Thought I’d share a couple articles here. The second is a response to the first.

In Mourning for Charlie Kirk...and for Anabaptists
A reflection on the trajectory of conservative Anabaptism by Ellis Miller

Found on Ryan Stoltfus Substack:
https://ryanstoltzfus.substack.com/p/in ... irkand-for

Today I mourn for a widow who has lost a husband who loved her and who loved Jesus. I mourn for two children who will grow up without their father.

I mourn for our nation divided by the politics of left and right, but united in the pursuit of power and wealth and glory. Able to expend energy in social outrage, but unable to love the “other” neighbor as themselves.

While this is tragic, it isn’t surprising and it isn’t new. Human nature without redemption will always find an enemy – other nations, other races, other religions, other views.

I mourn for the American churches who have joined the flag with the cross, who embrace the Bible with one hand and the rifle with the other. Who don’t live as exiles hoping for a heavenly country, but instead celebrate their leader who promises to make this nation great again.

While this is tragic, it isn’t surprising and it isn’t new. The church has long been tempted with power and with compromise. Constantine and the crusades show what happens when the church abandons the ways of its suffering Savior and takes up the sword.

But even more, I mourn for my Anabaptist brothers and sisters and our churches. How has it happened that we have kept an identity that is plain but lost our identity as pilgrims? When did we move from living as exiles and ambassadors to embracing conservative politics and political figures as our own (whether we vote or not)?

To be clear, I count Charlie Kirk as a brother in Christ. He unapologetically preached Christ and the gospel. For this I am grateful. He was a gifted communicator who challenged many to reconsider both their personal views and their political views. His skill was admirable.

Yet he also unapologetically pushed an aggressive political agenda and was closely tied to a President whose words and life differ sharply from Christ’s commands. He attacked political enemies and called for the death penalty for a former president. He saw the US government as Christian (”This is a Christian state. I’d like to see it stay that way.”) and believed that Christ’s command to “Occupy until I come” was an instruction to dominate in government and all of society.

His funeral witnessed the confusing marriage of the church and state. His widow gave a moving testimony pointing to Christ and speaking of forgiveness. Other speakers clearly preached the gospel. But the stage was also shared with a political party to preach their agenda. It is clear that this version of Christianity is deeply joined to a particular brand of politics. The two are inseparable in life and in death.

What if instead of hours of politics, the time would have been given to Christ and the cross? What if committed Christians from across the political spectrum had laid down their differences and together preached the risen Christ? This could have been a moment for the church to stand together. Instead, the unity of political views trumped the unity of Christ.

We aren’t here to discuss Charlie Kirk. While I count him as a fellow believer, he was from a different faith tradition. His teachings were the clear outworking of his beliefs.

My question is whether our faith tradition will live out our beliefs. Or are they still our beliefs? This message of joining church and state is not unfamiliar to us as Anabaptists. However, it was not the message of our spiritual ancestors, it was the message of their persecutors. It is alien to the way of the kingdom Christian.

We wince when we see a buggy in the lane and a Trump sign in the yard. Yet these symbols too closely represent the hearts of many in our churches. We have brothers who are listening to Fox News more than the Bible, to Tucker Carlson more than Menno Simons.

A friend recently told me that unless we unapologetically embrace and speak about our identity as citizens of another country, it will disappear in the onslaught of social media and conservative political culture.

For those of you who do not embrace this marriage of Anabaptism and politics, we are at a place where silence is probably not the right option. We must prayerfully, graciously, humbly, courageously speak up for Christ and his kingdom.

We are at a turning point.

How will we respond?

Will we embrace Christ’s words that “my kingdom is not of this world”?

Will we embrace the instructions of Peter to live as exiles and sojourners?

Will we accept the call to be ambassadors of another kingdom both in this country and throughout the world?

Will we love our enemies and pray for them?

Will we become passionate followers of Christ or will we remain the comfortable quiet in the land?

Will our people be steeped in Scripture and prayer or in social media, entertainment, and distraction?

Will the heritage we pass on to our children be one only marked by hard work and the blind pursuit of prosperity? Or will they have seen us sell all in order to gain the greatest Treasure of all?

Will the Master say “Well done!” when we stand before Him?

Original post: https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/ ... obilebasic

[R7ehr]

Second one.

A Response to Mourning Charlie Kirk... and for the Anabaptists
If allegiance matters...

By Jonathan Mast on his Substack: https://anhonesttheology.substack.com/p ... arlie-kirk

Charlie Kirk’s death sparked reactions through the halls of Congress into the pulpits of churches. While I usually avoid commentary on current political events, I am glad for brothers like Miller who took the time to write a thought-provoking article on the topic. If you have not already, read it and spend some time reflecting on his questions at the end.

As much as I appreciate his perspective, I kept tripping over a few phrases in the article that I felt undermined the very argument Miller was attempting to make. I would like to respond to those particular lines.

Miller mentioned that he counts Charlie Kirk “a brother in Christ.”A bit later, he uses a similar line.

While I count him as a fellow believer, he was from a different faith tradition.

Believer has become blurred in Christianese, and so I’m not sure what Miller meant by using it. Did Charlie believe in God? Indeed. But even the devils can believe and, what is more, tremble. Does believing God exists make you a Christian? Not if that is your only claim to salvation. Miller’s use of brother in Christ seems to indicate his definition of believer.

Miller argues that our sole allegiance to Jesus is paramount to our salvation and then proceeds to call a man with confusing allegiances to both “heaven” and MAGA a brother in Christ. Is our allegiance important or not? If yes, individuals with allegiances to this world’s systems are not your brothers in Christ*.

And the “different faith tradition” argument smells a bit suspect. Is my Orthodox neighbor who drinks every weekend a brother in Christ because he comes from a different faith tradition? Or perhaps my Muslim friend will still end up in heaven because he was in a different faith tradition? If we use the “different faith tradition” argument, what is the purpose of evangelism?

Another sentence that kept raising flags was the following one.

He unapologetically preached Christ and the gospel.

What gospel? The gospel of the kingdom of heaven? Hardly. The gospel of salvation according to convoluted marriage of heaven and MAGA? More likely. He is seen as much a political martyr as a Christian one**. Trump himself describes Kirk as an evangelist—not for the gospel but for “American liberty.” Vance picks up that theme by stating that Kirk is a “hero of the United States” and a “martyr of the Christian faith.”

So what is our response? If an obedient allegiance to Christ is the mark of a Christian, then we need to be careful who we link arms with as brothers. We can mourn those who seek to gain the whole world and still lose their own souls. We can pray against the demons of this world who offer a deadly mixture of allegiances. We can teach our children to respect and love those of different faith traditions, while still making it clear that allegiance to Christ alone saves. We can live a life that faithfully proclaims a single allegiance of the only King who deserves it.

* I don’t claim to know Kirk’s final destination. However, I do not support holding him up as a Christian martyr worth following. He held to many non-biblical positions, and we do the next generation no service by celebrating him a hero.

* Just watch his memorial service to get a taste of the confusion.

[QuietlyListening]

I can't tell if Miller knew CK or not. I like what he had to say and if he indeed knew CK and knew of CK's walk with the Lord then calling him a brother in Christ does not bother me.
Personally I never heard of him before the assignation and have heard much back and forth but did not know what his walk was like so have to agree with the 2nd articles footnote

* I don’t claim to know Kirk’s final destination. However, I do not support holding him up as a Christian martyr worth following. He held to many non-biblical positions, and we do the next generation no service by celebrating him a hero.

Both are good articles and much food for thought. Good questions at the end of the first article.

[Wesleyb]

Both are good. I believe they agree more than they differ. I somewhat agree with the point of the second one about calling him a brother, but if we aren’t careful, soon we are refusing to call someone a brother because they were baptized the wrong way or wear the wrong style of suit.

[JohnH]

Y’know, any conservative Anabaptist could go do what Charlie Kirk did, go to college campuses, talk, debate. Instead of complaining other Christians do it wrong… be the change you want to see.

[Valerie]

Y’know, any conservative Anabaptist could go do what Charlie Kirk did, go to college campuses, talk, debate. Instead of complaining other Christians do it wrong… be the change you want to see.

I never even heard of Anabaptists until I was approaching 50. I’ve shared this before. We had a Christian bookstore in Medina one hour away from Holmes County Ohio the largest Anabaptist county in the world. Yes, it competes with Lancaster. They go back-and-forth with numbers. The owner of the bookstore when I asked him if he has any books on Anabaptists he said ma’am, i’ve owned this Christian bookstore for 40 years and I’ve never heard of Anabaptists. That’s sad! I have to say that I ended up feeling like most Anabaptist people really didn’t care about the lost. Yes, there were benefit auctions and dinners for places like Haiti and third world countries, but not lost souls in our own country..

[R7ehr]

Y’know, any conservative Anabaptist could go do what Charlie Kirk did, go to college campuses, talk, debate. Instead of complaining other Christians do it wrong… be the change you want to see.

I never even heard of Anabaptists until I was approaching 50. I’ve shared this before. We had a Christian bookstore in Medina one hour away from Holmes County Ohio the largest Anabaptist county in the world. Yes, it competes with Lancaster. They go back-and-forth with numbers. The owner of the bookstore when I asked him if he has any books on Anabaptists he said ma’am, i’ve owned this Christian bookstore for 40 years and I’ve never heard of Anabaptists. That’s sad! I have to say that I ended up feeling like most Anabaptist people really didn’t care about the lost. Yes, there were benefit auctions and dinners for places like Haiti and third world countries, but not lost souls in our own country..

Maybe he’d be familiar with the more commonly used words of Amish or Mennonite?

[Valerie]

Y’know, any conservative Anabaptist could go do what Charlie Kirk did, go to college campuses, talk, debate. Instead of complaining other Christians do it wrong… be the change you want to see.

I never even heard of Anabaptists until I was approaching 50. I’ve shared this before. We had a Christian bookstore in Medina one hour away from Holmes County Ohio the largest Anabaptist county in the world. Yes, it competes with Lancaster. They go back-and-forth with numbers. The owner of the bookstore when I asked him if he has any books on Anabaptists he said ma’am, i’ve owned this Christian bookstore for 40 years and I’ve never heard of Anabaptists. That’s sad! I have to say that I ended up feeling like most Anabaptist people really didn’t care about the lost. Yes, there were benefit auctions and dinners for places like Haiti and third world countries, but not lost souls in our own country..

Maybe he’d be familiar with the more commonly used words of Amish or Mennonite?

I’m sure. I never heard of Mennonites until I visited Lancaster County when I was 34, but of course I was from CA. Had not heard of Amish until I met my husband when I was 31 but they are probably the only Christian denominations I had never heard of so I understand JohnH trying to encourage Charlie Kirk’s example of caring for these in desperate need-
I think WE ALL do. I think this was a wake up call.

[barnhart]

Thought I’d share a couple articles here. The second is a response to the first.

Thanks for sharing. I might have quibbles here and there but in general, this is a response I feel comfortable with.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Good articles both.

Only minor quibble with the first is that it was a memorial service, not a funeral. And also I somewhat share the reservations shares in the second article.

I guess the second article goes a little too far. Maybe I wouldn't use "brother" but only if I had a substitute (like "cousin" in Christ, inspired by one of Ernest's posts). Denying someone the title of brother feels like denying them the title of Christian. And I'm not prepared to be the judge of that. C.S.Lewis said it's healthier to say someone is "a bad Christian" than to say they are "not a Christian". I'm more comfortable pointing out the grievous errors that CK represented than I am saying "he's not a brother" or "he's not a believer".
So I guess I have a broader issue with the thesis of the second article, rather than a quibble. After all, even Paul pointed out that there were several selfish fake "apostles" in his time, grifters and conmen... and Paul was just like "at least the gospel is being preached!" I feel similar about CK. He preached a false gospel about a political ideology, but he also preached a gospel of Jesus that could stand on it's own as truth. Maybe like Paul we can both point out what was wrong and also be thankful that "the gospel is being preached".