Mourning Charlie Kirk - for Anabaptists

[Jazman]

I'm challenged by both and have some points of agreement with both (articles) I guess I lean towards the more generous one, the 1st (Mr Stoltfus). But like Mr Mast, I had/have deep disagreements/qualms about most of CK's message and approach... and so I resonate with Mast's forthright critique of that. But it did seem to exude a bit of sectarian/fundamentalist vibe and I think I'll probably react to that for the rest of my life...

But maybe Mast shares the conundrums I feel/have felt intensely in the trump era since about 2016... In my personal life with some hard-line Maga friends/family, I do find it difficult to - at least on some levels - to feel like we are brothers in Christ... The level of misreading of clear Scripture seems to border on heretical at times... the amount of radical prooftexting bits and pieces of Scripture to make the MAGA culture-war/political movement into a Jesus-shaped box flabbergasts me... I feel it has discipled people (including some Mennos) away from the WAY of Jesus, the NEW covenant and how that is, imo, clearly exposited in the NT, so the hard-lined part of this politico-religious? movement feels like steps towards departing the faith (even on a general level, let alone an Anabaptist/Menno level... I mean have even non-Anabaptist/Menno branches of Christianity taught their people that the Sermon on the Mount or like texts in other Gospels or epistles can be totally disregarded? Maybe they did/do? Some of the hard-line MAGA folk I know believe this now; it's rather convenient for justifying what their political movement does and wants to do)
It's that disregard and misuse of Scripture and the teachings/life example of Jesus, that seems unprecedented to me and has made me feel like me and a few of my MAGA brothers/sisters are in different religions... maybe this is how Mr Mast has felt as well?

But, despite my own proclivity for glass-half-empty, you-can't-be-my-brother judging and recognizing my need to approach things differently (credit my significant other for helping me see this and push me towards this) - I think the gentler approach of the first one is the way I want to lean, particularly if I'm sharing it with someone. (ie I would share the 1st with just about anyone; the 2nd one I would be a little more careful about who I share it with)

[temporal1]

P.3:

Neto:
.. Can even somewhat incorrect information about Jesus pique an interest that leads to a deep faith response? ..

Yes. If not, always.

Faith is a journey; this forum has one example after another of growth in faith over time.

[R7ehr]

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.

I think this is pirouetting around what I’m saying about judging. Judging something as good is still judging, using judgement. I don’t think encouraging, edifying, exhorting, condemning, slandering or loving need to be present at all for judgment to be made. It is possible to leave them altogether separate, or include them.

Any coward can hide from the truth deciding “Oh, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, I’ll not challenge anything”.
Lack of judgement doesn’t make one mature or a coward. Using judgement doesn’t either.

I just now was reading through some chapters in Proverbs and happened by chance upon these verses and they of course made me think of this conversation.

“He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.” Prov 24:24-25

“They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them. Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things.” Prov 28:4-5

“He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue.” Prov 28:23

“A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet.” Prov 29:5

Personally, I do think that I am on the inclusive side of “who is a Christian” too. My understanding on judging is that it is generally wiser not to shoo people into heaven or out of heaven. Not our job. Particularly with public figures such as Charlie Kirk where we might have opinions, and yet-
1. We don’t know them personally, and
2. there is mixed signals.

[R7ehr]

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?

I had to go back and read what was really written about the EO guy drinking to see what people were fussing about.

I can see that a simple reading would lead one to understand that the writer is equating a drink with a false religion. But when I read it for the first time, I understood the meaning to be getting drunk. I think there are many people who “drink every weekend” in order to get drunk. That being their whole reason for drinking.

I understood the meaning of that paragraph to say in short, “just because a person claims Christianity as an EO, if they get drunk every weekend, they are no more in the faith than a Muslim person is.”

On the other hand, perhaps the writer did indeed intend it just as you understood it. In that case, I agree that drinking some alcohol is not sin. I’m just suggesting that maybe the writer didn’t intend to say what it looks like.

[Wesleyb]

... I mean have even non-Anabaptist/Menno branches of Christianity taught their people that the Sermon on the Mount or like texts in other Gospels or epistles can be totally disregarded? Maybe they did/do? Some of the hard-line MAGA folk I know believe this now; it's rather convenient for justifying what their political movement does and wants to do)

I'm curious about this. Do you mean they come right out and state that? Or that they give lip service to Jesus' teachings but live as if they don't apply? Or do they attempt to adhere to these teachings in some parts of their life, but feel that they don't apply in other spheres such as politics?

[Neto]

... I mean have even non-Anabaptist/Menno branches of Christianity taught their people that the Sermon on the Mount or like texts in other Gospels or epistles can be totally disregarded? Maybe they did/do? Some of the hard-line MAGA folk I know believe this now; it's rather convenient for justifying what their political movement does and wants to do)

I'm curious about this. Do you mean they come right out and state that? Or that they give lip service to Jesus' teachings but live as if they don't apply? Or do they attempt to adhere to these teachings in some parts of their life, but feel that they don't apply in other spheres such as politics?

My own experience is that some types of dispensational teaching place the "Sermon on the Mount" in the Millenial kingdom period. That is, they say that it doesn't apply to the era in which we are living, that Jesus was speaking prophetically of the time after he returns to earth to set up his kingdom in a physical manifestation. (So they aren't dismissing it exactly, just putting it off so to speak.)

[ohio jones]

... I mean have even non-Anabaptist/Menno branches of Christianity taught their people that the Sermon on the Mount or like texts in other Gospels or epistles can be totally disregarded? Maybe they did/do? Some of the hard-line MAGA folk I know believe this now; it's rather convenient for justifying what their political movement does and wants to do)

I'm curious about this. Do you mean they come right out and state that? Or that they give lip service to Jesus' teachings but live as if they don't apply? Or do they attempt to adhere to these teachings in some parts of their life, but feel that they don't apply in other spheres such as politics?

My own experience is that some types of dispensational teaching place the "Sermon on the Mount" in the Millenial kingdom period. That is, they say that it doesn't apply to the era in which we are living, that Jesus was speaking prophetically of the time after he returns to earth to set up his kingdom in a physical manifestation. (So they aren't dismissing it exactly, just putting it off so to speak.)

I understand that's explicitly stated in the Scofield notes.

[Wesleyb]

I'm curious about this. Do you mean they come right out and state that? Or that they give lip service to Jesus' teachings but live as if they don't apply? Or do they attempt to adhere to these teachings in some parts of their life, but feel that they don't apply in other spheres such as politics?

My own experience is that some types of dispensational teaching place the "Sermon on the Mount" in the Millenial kingdom period. That is, they say that it doesn't apply to the era in which we are living, that Jesus was speaking prophetically of the time after he returns to earth to set up his kingdom in a physical manifestation. (So they aren't dismissing it exactly, just putting it off so to speak.)

I understand that's explicitly stated in the Scofield notes.

Yes, I'm aware there are people that believe this, but my understanding was that Jazman was speaking of Mennonites and I was a bit shocked that they would come right out and say this. I would have thought all Mennonites would have in common an understanding that the Sermon on the Mount was literally instructive for us today, even though some of us may do a poor job of living up to it at times. Maybe I misunderstood and he was speaking more broadly of Christian acquaintances.

[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.

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.)

I think that's correct. The primary draw to Kirk's campus visits, was politics, not faith. It's of course entirely possible for someone to have found Christ at one of his debates. The Lord works in mysterious ways, but I would call that a happy accident, not the event's purpose.

[JohnH]

Charlie Kirk took interest in politics and steered it towards faith.

Certain Anabaptists seem to be good at taking and faith and steering it towards politics.

I think most of us could learn a lot from Kirk’s methods.