Mourning Charlie Kirk - for Anabaptists

[Wesleyb]

I'm not quite sure I can get on board with the idea that evangelical Christians (including ones who happen to be ex-Anabaptists) are somehow not legitimate Christians because they support Trump or have a MAGA political alignment, specifically. Does this condemnation of evangelicals extend to (for example) mainline Protestants who might vote for Democratic candidates? Or is it just uniquely being a Trump supporter that makes one a non-Christian?

You are the first in this thread to use the term "legitimate Christian." Does that mean the same to you as "brother in Christ" referenced in the article in the OP or something different?

In my specific church, we use the terms "a brother in the faith" to mean someone who holds identical doctrines to ourselves (such as nonresistance), and "a brother in Christ" to refer to someone who is clearly filled with the Holy Ghost and following Jesus, but isn't in our church and possibly has different doctrines.

Yes, as I said before a lot of the disagreement here revolves around different understanding of these terms. Your usages aren't necessarily wrong but they may be different than how others here would use them.

I am simply challenging the idea that someone isn't a Christian at all because they align with a particular political party or political leader.

Yes, I would go beyond challenging that idea to denouncing it. To the extent that anyone here believes that, I whole heartedly disagree. I think we would agree though that there is such a thing as a person who uses the Christian label, but is clearly not trying to follow Christ's example and teachings. It's to those he will say "depart from me I never knew you." Posters here probably have different ideas of how much judging if any we should do about such people, but I would say it should be clear any judging we do should be based on alignment with Jesus, not with political parties.

[Bootstrap]

Look what just happened here. In a post calling out the politics above rushing into the conversation, the politics below comes rushing in...

And one difference we see is that the kind of devotion that many Christians give to Trump is not something we see toward other political leaders, whether Republican or Democrat. Who else could get away with saying "I'm the only one who can save you"? MAGA and QAnon have their own religious elements that seem much more pagan than Christian. They worship power, glory, and greed, not humility, love, and truth. That's not the Christian religion.

I don’t think this is a political framework.

This is Christianity evaluating politics, not politics evaluating Christianity. Christianity does not have to justify itself to MAGA.

[Bootstrap]

I am simply challenging the idea that someone isn't a Christian at all because they align with a particular political party or political leader.

I agree with you, we shouldn’t say someone “isn’t a Christian” just because they align with a political party or leader.

But I do think that our identity and our world view and our values should be driven by the Bible and what Jesus said and did. We do not worship political leaders. Our allegiance is to Christ’s Kingdom, which is not of this world.

That’s my issue with Charlie Kirk’s message. He often blurred the line between Christian faith and MAGA politics, as though loyalty to Christ and loyalty to Trump belong together. I believe that’s a distortion of the gospel, and it’s something we should resist.

For me, seeking first the Kingdom of God means not letting partisan politics define who we are or divide the body of Christ. Our calling is to live out Jesus’ way, and that doesn’t fit neatly into any party’s platform.

[barnhart]

I'm listening to a podcast with historian Marcus Yoder tonight. This was recorded BC (Before Charlie) but echoes the ideas being developed in this thread.

Could you tell me where to find it. I have a lot of respect for Marcus.

[ohio jones]

I'm listening to a podcast with historian Marcus Yoder tonight. This was recorded BC (Before Charlie) but echoes the ideas being developed in this thread.

Could you tell me where to find it. I have a lot of respect for Marcus.

The part I quoted starts around 52:00.

[GaryK]

Look what just happened here. In a post calling out the politics above rushing into the conversation, the politics below comes rushing in...

And one difference we see is that the kind of devotion that many Christians give to Trump is not something we see toward other political leaders, whether Republican or Democrat. Who else could get away with saying "I'm the only one who can save you"? MAGA and QAnon have their own religious elements that seem much more pagan than Christian. They worship power, glory, and greed, not humility, love, and truth. That's not the Christian religion.

I don’t think this is a political framework.

This is Christianity evaluating politics, not politics evaluating Christianity. Christianity does not have to justify itself to MAGA.

Are you saying John's post was a political framework and that it was politics evaluating Christianity?

I'm not quite sure I can get on board with the idea that evangelical Christians (including ones who happen to be ex-Anabaptists) are somehow not legitimate Christians because they support Trump or have a MAGA political alignment, specifically. Does this condemnation of evangelicals extend to (for example) mainline Protestants who might vote for Democratic candidates? Or is it just uniquely being a Trump supporter that makes one a non-Christian?

I thought he was pushing back on Christians implying that others aren't Christian just because of their political leanings.

[Bootstrap]

Are you saying John's post was a political framework and that it was politics evaluating Christianity?

Yes, I think John’s post distracts from a legitimately Christian discussion of our loyalties by taking political offense and insisting that we pass some kind of political neutrality test.

Nobody in this thread has said that Evangelical Christians (including ones who happen to be ex-Anabaptists) are somehow not legitimate Christians because they support Trump or have a MAGA political alignment. That’s a strawman, and it shifts the focus toward political grievance.

And Gary, I don’t think any of us want this to turn into a political purity test. You’ve said you don’t want politics rushing in, and I agree. The best way to guard against that is to stay with the deeper question: how Christians are called to evaluate our political loyalties in light of Christ. We really need to make room for that here.

[GaryK]

Are you saying John's post was a political framework and that it was politics evaluating Christianity?

Yes, I think John’s post distracts from a legitimately Christian discussion of our loyalties by taking political offense and insisting that we pass some kind of political neutrality test.

And yet he explained what he was challenging and you agreed with him. Yet here you seem to be assuming that he was politically offended and was pushing some kind of political neutrality test. So who exactly is making this about politics?

I am simply challenging the idea that someone isn't a Christian at all because they align with a particular political party or political leader.

I agree with you, we shouldn’t say someone “isn’t a Christian” just because they align with a political party or leader.

[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?

You can search for quote about Jesus he's said. Here's the first I found:

I mean, I'm nothing without Jesus. I'm a sinner. I fall incredibly short of the glory of God. We all do. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade, and it's the most important decision I've ever made, and everything I do incorporates Jesus Christ

A few days before his death, he tweeted something succinct along the lines of "Jesus died so that I may live."

This kind of message could have been pretty helpful to the world from someone who had his platform. I think it was too often muddied with his political message, which was much more prominent. But he was, it seems, capable of talking about his faith at times without instantly syncretising it with his political ideology.

Ok. Thanks. But I am wondering how this "stands on it's own as truth."

[temporal1]

I'm listening to a podcast with historian Marcus Yoder tonight. This was recorded BC (Before Charlie) but echoes the ideas being developed in this thread.

Could you tell me where to find it. I have a lot of respect for Marcus.

The part I quoted starts around 52:00.

i’m glad to see this video and channel. thank you.
i’ll view more than once and look for additional content.

P+T wrote:
.. But he was, it seems, capable of talking about his faith at times without instantly syncretising it with his political ideology.

This is my sense of CK, too.
Which makes me wonder how his already strong faith would have matured, given time.
i believe, whatever any of us says, in any context, that which is of Jesus Christ, will endure. The rest fades away.