Mourning Charlie Kirk - for Anabaptists

[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.

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.

I think "judgement" implies a negative condemnation. Hence "judge not that you be not judged." I would advocate for the spirit of love believes the best, hopes for all things, etc.

That said, I don't think to many people would accuse me of being conflict averse. I think we should unapologetically challenges those that we feel need challenging. But I don't think we need to do so from a place of condemnation. I affirm certain things about Charlie Kirk. Other things, like pronouncing the death penalty on Biden, are appropriately rebuked. Just like I need rebuke from time to time. (One of the dangers of those who would be teachers is that they talk a lot. And when you talk a lot, you are more likely to say things sooner or later that are not ideal. The tongue is dangerous. And when you are recorded a lot, those things remain forever. Somehow, it seems likely to me that, were Charlie able, he would repudiate that what he said about Biden, and also what he said about Michelle O etc.

[JohnH]

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.

This would be much more common amongst non-plain Anabaptists

[Wesleyb]

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.

This would be much more common amongst non-plain Anabaptists

In actual church teaching, or only among individuals influenced by other denominations?

[Bootstrap]

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.

In both Greek and English, the word for judging (κρίνω) can mean three different things:

1. To choose. Example: Acts 15:19 – “Wherefore my judgment is…”
2. To form an opinion, to determine. Example: Lk 7:43 – “I suppose (krinō) that he…” (forming an opinion).
3. To put a person on trial, passing judgement, condemning someone. Example: Jn 7:51 – “Doth our law judge (krinei) any man, except it first hear him?”

I think modern American politics and a lot of online culture spends way too much time doing #3, which is precisely what Jesus says we should not do. Jesus is against doing that, and so am I.

[barnhart]

... 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 am more familiar with the Mennonites who put the reigning with a rod of iron/judging the nations in the future with a question mark around how the sermon on the mountain will apply at that point.

[JohnH]

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.

This would be much more common amongst non-plain Anabaptists

In actual church teaching, or only among individuals influenced by other denominations?

In my church there is zero freedom to become a God and country sort of politically involved Christian. In a more liberal church you could easily do so.

[eccentric_rambler]

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.

Mike, this addresses your comment because it is a good jumping off point for my thoughts. I'm not intending to address any you's below to you personally.

To whom do you apply "not ushering into heaven's gate"? Consider the following grid. For "No knowledge" assume someone whose name and church affiliation you may know, but little to no more. "Acquainted" contains the middle swath - people you have some knowledge of their positions but no close, continuing fellowship with. My list could include you, Daniel Kauffman, my Catholic neighbor I've talked to thrice, Charlie Kirk, or a member of a sister congregation. "Close Fellowship" hopefully contains all those in your local congregation, probably includes people you work with daily, and may include others you spend significant time with.

______________|No Knowledge | Acquainted | Close Fellowship
Catholic________|____________|__________|_____________
Baptist_________|____________|__________|_____________
Non-denom Eva._|____________|__________|_____________
BMA___________|____________|__________|_____________
Agape__________|____________|__________|_____________
Hope Fellowship_|____________|__________|_____________
Nationwide______|____________|__________|_____________
OO Amish_______|____________|__________|_____________

Are there any intersections you would feel comfortable checking off for the question "I expect (or have a lively hope) to see [name] in heaven"? My point is this is a column problem, not a row problem.

We are in a position to determine who gets a checkmark in the right-hand column. We can see their fruit. We know their hearts. If we see error in our neighbor's life it is our responsibility to warn him.

The center column is the problem in this discussion. There are people who think they can answer yes and outside this group some are hesitant to even say maybe. Can either position make the claim? They have some knowledge of Charlie's beliefs, but I don't know of anyone here who was close enough to Charlie to put him in their rightmost column*. It seems, though, that because he was a public figure and they know what he said in public, that they can decide whether or not the box gets checked. Beliefs can shift over time. We might say something to win a debate that we wouldn't say again if given a second chance.

It isn't wrong to look at a statement or an action and compare it to Scripture. For me, it is a bridge too far to look at someone with a clear testimony of salvation through Christ's death and resurrection and a life containing choices that appear to be motivated by that salvation, and then say "He is more or less likely to be in heaven because he affirms x and rejects y.

We are human. Looking at this as a row question satisfies our desires for simplicity and tribe. Some will argue that trust within an organized group allows us to have hope for someone in column 1 or column 2. I'm not interested in answering the question for those columns. People I can influence need my time and attention.

*At its root, is this a celebrity problem? It pre-exists social media. We tend to think we know people when we only know their public face. Including Daniel Kauffman in this column was very intentional.

[Ernie]

but he also preached a gospel of Jesus that could stand on it's own as truth.

Can you tell me more about this?

[Jazman]

... 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 wrote that too quickly and it came out muddled... I don't know of practicing Mennos who dismiss or even postpone the Sermon on the Mount... but I do know of some ex-Mennos but now non-denominational types who do. They also happen to be pretty anti-Menno and hard line MAGA... I wonder if some of this disregard for the Sermon on the Mount or generally the hard teachings of Jesus is a reaction against them because those teachings happen to be Menno emphases... in their quest to get as far from Menno as possible, they seem more open to any interpretation/hermeneutic that helps inspirt/rationalize that trajectory... so the teachings of Jesus in that passage fall victim to this... and that seems to open the door to christian nationalism, dominionism and hardline MAGA...
And then I was wondering out loud if this dismissal exists or is taught in other more mainline or traditional Protestant (but not Menno) denominations? I'm not sure. My sense is that this, imo near heresy is more a charismatic or non-denominational thing? But I could be wrong about that too.

[barnhart]

... My sense is that this, imo near heresy is more a charismatic or non-denominational thing? But I could be wrong about that too.

Some sections of the charismatics have followed an arc of "we are called to spiritual warfare" to "successful spiritual warfare is mostly political success" to "God has revealed through modern prophets the precise high places in culture and government we are to seize" to "Maga is helping with this project" to "President Trump is God's anointed fulfillment of these prophecies."