Mourning Charlie Kirk - for Anabaptists

[Neto]

I had probably heard of C. Kirk before his death, but hadn't listened to any of his stuff then, and have only heard bits & pieces now. I wonder what was the main thing that attracted the crowds of young people to his campus events. Was it the opportunity to discuss or argue politics, or 'religion'? Was he using the political angle to enable him to interact with people on a spiritual level? (I HAVE sensed that he had very strong political opinions, and it seems that a fair bit of his motivation was politically centered. But I am not judging him - I think we should rather evaluate how we ourselves may 'step up our game' in engaging with people about Christ.)

[Szdfan]

I had probably heard of C. Kirk before his death, but hadn't listened to any of his stuff then, and have only heard bits & pieces now. I wonder what was the main thing that attracted the crowds of young people to his campus events. Was it the opportunity to discuss or argue politics, or 'religion'? Was he using the political angle to enable him to interact with people on a spiritual level? (I HAVE sensed that he had very strong political opinions, and it seems that a fair bit of his motivation was politically centered. But I am not judging him - I think we should rather evaluate how we ourselves may 'step up our game' in engaging with people about Christ.)

None of these campus debates were faith revivals and it’s my sense that for Kirk, being a Christian was deeply intertwined with being a Republican.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

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.

I forgot about this, but I agree. There are a TON of Christians who are very responsible with drinking alcohol and to think that a neighbor who has one drink a week can not be a Christian is absurd. Teetotalism doesn't even go back that far into Mennonite history. It's crazy to think "my neighbor isn't a Christian because he is EO and/or has has one drink once a week". Drunkneness isn't even a plausible scenario here unless he has a specific genetic condition/makeup.

[joshuabgood]

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.

This is an interesting topic...perhaps in its own right. I don't find that logic compelling. Jesus himself pitched a big tent...those who aren't against us are for us. I don't think we need to judge or make claims of exclusivity re other faith traditions to challenge them. Why not affirm what we can affirm...and challenge what we feel needs challenged. And vice versa...

[mike]

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.

This is an interesting topic...perhaps in its own right. I don't find that logic compelling. Jesus himself pitched a big tent...those who aren't against us are for us. I don't think we need to judge or make claims of exclusivity re other faith traditions to challenge them. Why not affirm what we can affirm...and challenge what we feel needs challenged. And vice versa...

I was not intending to advocate for judging or making claims of exclusivity. Although adhering to the faith tradition of following Jesus really does have elements of exclusivity, and ideas of a narrow path, and a 'sheepfold' where one is either in or out, and so forth.

Can there not be a way to affirm what is good in a faith tradition without making the judgment claim that adherents to that tradition are in fact 'brothers in Christ'? Like, I'm fine with saying that Charlie Kirk said and did good things, but I'm not fine with ushering him into heaven's gate. That's up to God.

[R7ehr]

Everyone thinks they are “against judging” and that “judging is wrong”.
Until they decide that someone should be “judged” as a good person. Then we forget that is also judging, just as much as negative judgements.

Don’t whine about negative judgements, and then promote positive judgements under the banner of “non-judgement” or inclusivity.

[mike]

Everyone thinks they are “against judging” and that “judging is wrong”.
Until they decide that someone should be “judged” as a good person. Then we forget that is also judging, just as much as negative judgements.

Don’t whine about negative judgements, and then promote positive judgements under the banner of “non-judgement” or inclusivity.

I agree. This is what I'm trying to say.

[joshuabgood]

I don't think encouraging, edifying and exhorting are the same as condemning, slandering, etc. Love believes the best...not the worst. That is why Marpeck could refer to those still in the state churches as his dear brothers. And maybe why Jesus saw the good in the Roman militants. Any person can nitpick, judge, condemn, and make himself feel better. Perhaps a mature person takes another tack.

[JohnH]

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.

What "Christianity" was being preached at his funeral you had a problem with?

Stephen Miller is a Jew and as far as I know hasn't converted to Christianity. He didn't promote Christianity at all.

I don't recall Trump advocating for Christianity either, other than to say that he has not so far learned how to love his enemies like Charlie Kirk would have wanted him to. That seems like a very positive testimony about Charlie Kirk.

[Neto]

I had probably heard of C. Kirk before his death, but hadn't listened to any of his stuff then, and have only heard bits & pieces now. I wonder what was the main thing that attracted the crowds of young people to his campus events. Was it the opportunity to discuss or argue politics, or 'religion'? Was he using the political angle to enable him to interact with people on a spiritual level? (I HAVE sensed that he had very strong political opinions, and it seems that a fair bit of his motivation was politically centered. But I am not judging him - I think we should rather evaluate how we ourselves may 'step up our game' in engaging with people about Christ.)

None of these campus debates were faith revivals and it’s my sense that for Kirk, being a Christian was deeply intertwined with being a Republican.

So, would you say that those who came were also focused on politics? That is, is that the main reason that most of them came to listen to him?

(I do not agree with 'wedding' Christianity to a political view point, but I'm wondering is some who came heard the basic Gospel whereas they might otherwise not have heard it at all? Again, I haven't listened to much at all of his discussions with the students, so I'm not making any kind of comment regarding the accuracy of the part of his 'message' that dealt with Christian faith. Can even somewhat incorrect information about Jesus pique an interest that leads to a deep faith response? I'm remembering how the first 'witness' I heard about "Christian pasivism", faulty though it was, eventually lead me to non-resistance.)