Mourning Charlie Kirk - for Anabaptists

[joshuabgood]

I resonate more with the first article. It feels to me affirming and looking for common ground, believing the best etc...is a good tack to take while also unapologetically advocating for another perspective.

But I wouldn't judge the EO guy either...

[Wesleyb]

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.

Yes, after reflecting on this a little more, I realize that we could argue on for pages and pages about this all because we were thinking of different meanings of the word brother. By some definitions I would call someone like this a brother and by others I would not.

[JayP]

I am still totally stunned that the basis of rejecting the Orthodox guy next was that he took a drink.
Now I am hardly endorsing drunkenness, and I do not know that fellow.

There are plenty of reasons you may not want to over identify with the type of Christianity living next door, but I think criticism that he took a drink is WAY over the line. Your group may reject alcohol, but be quite careful about setting rules.
There is plenty of ammo for arguing against churches that reject all drinking.

Often these are the very groups that are SO loud about “the Bible says this…or it says NOT that..”

Well last I’m necked there was a lot of wine drinking going on in my Bible, and what was the first miracle?

[JohnH]

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?

I find it a bit concerning when someone can’t tell the difference between Orthodoxy and Islam.

After all, the Muslim wouldn’t be drinking either.

[temporal1]

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’m late to learn about CK, my impression is, he opened important doors, esp on campuses and to young people, where it is much needed. i agree, it’s illogical to expect others to “do it right” without exposure to what is right.

my experience is much like Valerie’s, i’ve been surprised at people i would have guessed would know about Anabaptists, Mennonites, Amish, who did not know. hmm. maybe i’ll ask about the Huguenots. Waldensians.

[Bootstrap]

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

!!! SNIP !!!
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.

And so often, this is simply the air we breathe, the main way we instinctively talk about any issue or event. Until we polarize it and identify right versus left, we no longer know what to say.

To get beyond that, we have to keep returning to the Bible, learning from it. Not in shallow cliches, but really getting to the heart of how it sees the world.

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.

And this is where Mennonites across the board used to be united. Maybe some were more Sattler and others more Marpeck in our Two Kingdom theologies, but we had solidly Mennonite Two Kingdom theologies. Not just in our teaching, but in the way we viewed the world.

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)?

On the right or the left, I see a lot of Mennonites whose identities are tied up in politics. Political figures we had never heard of or paid attention to previously suddenly become the people we identify with or polarize around. Because that's what we do.

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.

And that's where he was best.

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.

And I think there are places where he said things significantly worse than that, dehumanizing people, using ugly stereotypes, and justifying things that should not be justified.

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.

At the funeral, Erika Kirk preached love and forgiveness, Trump preached hate and revenge. The audience applauded both - I wonder if the same people were applauding for both.

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.

I agree. Actually, about half of the speakers tried to do that, focusing on the Christian side of Kirk's life and calling others to that. The other half seemed to be preaching power politics and polarization. The contrast was striking. Especially with Erika Kirk and Trump at the very end.

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.

Precisely. And not just for conservative Anabaptists. This really is about our identity and our witness.

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.

Amen. And most of us need to remember how. How to apply a biblical Christian world view to whatever surrounds us and whatever happens to us. I am not a conservative Anabaptist, but I think this is true for all Mennonites. And not just Mennonites, for all biblical Christians.

[Bootstrap]

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.

Yes, after reflecting on this a little more, I realize that we could argue on for pages and pages about this all because we were thinking of different meanings of the word brother. By some definitions I would call someone like this a brother and by others I would not.

We don't need to know how to judge Charlie Kirk as a person or how God will judge him now that his life is over. All of that is in God's hands. God has not called us to be Kirk's judge.

But we do need to know how to live out a biblical Christian faith in the world around us.

[Bootstrap]

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.

The change we want to see may look very different from the way Kirk lived. But I agree that we are not called to judge him. Or to idolize him. Or to identify with him.

We can admire his courage and his talents without doing any of those things. But I also think we need to distance ourselves from the kind of "Christianity" that some people were preaching at his funeral.

I think Erika Kirk got it right. What she said at the funeral looks like biblical Christianity to me.

[mike]

I resonate more with the first article. It feels to me affirming and looking for common ground, believing the best etc...is a good tack to take while also unapologetically advocating for another perspective.

But I wouldn't judge the EO guy either...

I agreed more with the second article. I don't feel it is our duty to affirm and look for common ground with everyone who considers themselves Christian, any more than it is our duty to judge and condemn them. The approach of Paul and Jesus to Charlie Kirk might have been this:

15 To be sure, some preach Christ out of envy and strife, but others out of good will. 16 These do so out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the others proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely, seeking to cause me anxiety in my imprisonment. 18 What does it matter? Just that in every way, whether out of false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed. And in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice.

38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him because he wasn’t following us.”

39 “Don’t stop him,” said Jesus, “because there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name who can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 41 And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of My name, since you belong to the Messiah—I assure you: He will never lose his reward.

About the EO guy, I agree with you, and also and with JayP that it is quite odd to single out drinking as the reason to question his being a brother in Christ. Although there is probably a story behind that opinion, and I suspect that by drinking he means being a drunk.

[barnhart]

I agreed more with the second article. I don't feel it is our duty to affirm and look for common ground with everyone who considers themselves Christian, any more than it is our duty to judge and condemn them.

This is a new thought for me but I suspect you are right. Both approaches come from the same worldview, if you lack that, you will avoid them both.