Mourning Charlie Kirk - for Anabaptists

[mike]

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.

Interesting. I have no idea when and where I briefly met Marcus, but if I remember correctly I was someplace where he talked about attending Taylor University virtually through their distance learning program, and after looking into it, I did the same.

[JohnH]

Yeah, that's a pretty good succinct synopsis of the trajectory I've seen in some. And like Mast, I struggle with including that in the family that is the Church universal... it feels nearly heretical; so far out there... but I know (intellectually and maybe somewhat heart as well) that it's not my right or role to exile them to non-Christian status...I can discern the parts that I'm fairly confident God doesn't want me to imitate or condone and praise those parts that exhibit the true fruits of the Spirit; many are sincere; they believe they're following Jesus - they Want to, they want to know God/be in relationship with God... just like I'm trying (and often failing)... it's such a muddle...

It’s “such a muddle” to accept that someone can be a follower of Christ yet also have voted for a politician you dislike?

Do you apply this same criteria to a politician you like? Because if not, it seems you are defining whether or not someone is a Christian based on which political party they support. I find that really indefensible.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

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 syncretizing it with his political ideology.

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

To be fair, I said it could stand on its own as truth. To what extent CK did this, I am not fully aware. I am aware that most of the time his Christian message was thrown into a broader conversation that was mostly political/secular/ideological. I also know at least one instance (a Twitter/X post) where he posted a Christian truth on its own, seemingly divorced from any broader political conversation: "Jesus defeated death so you can live."

My point was just in service of saying (1) CK should not be venerated as a Christian "hero", but he also should not be denied the identity of "Christian" either. The man was confused and had some profound idols in his life, but, if we take his words at face value, he also was earnest about following Jesus and encouraging others to take the truths about Jesus seriously.

[Ernie]

To be fair, I said it could stand on its own as truth. To what extent CK did this, I am not fully aware. I am aware that most of the time his Christian message was thrown into a broader conversation that was mostly political/secular/ideological. I also know at least one instance (a Twitter/X post) where he posted a Christian truth on its own, seemingly divorced from any broader political conversation: "Jesus defeated death so you can live."

My point was just in service of saying (1) CK should not be venerated as a Christian "hero", but he also should not be denied the identity of "Christian" either. The man was confused and had some profound idols in his life, but, if we take his words at face value, he also was earnest about following Jesus and encouraging others to take the truths about Jesus seriously.

Ok. Now I get what you are saying, I think.

Charlie Kirk is what I might call a devout Christian.
He may have been really misguided on some important things and had some really bad theology. But hey, all of us are susceptible to that, including Anabaptists.

[JohnH]

I’d be delighted if more Anabaptists took the direction CK did - including becoming gradually less political with time.

Unfortunately the current toxic media soup Anabaptists are immersing themselves in is making them get more and more political, and it’s frankly embarrassing to watch.

[temporal1]

I’d be delighted if more Anabaptists took the direction CK did - including becoming gradually less political with time.

Unfortunately the current toxic media soup Anabaptists are immersing themselves in is making them get more and more political, and it’s frankly embarrassing to watch.

Every Christian must begin where they are, then grow from that place.
Not as unlike the earliest Catholic monks+priests, hundreds of years before Luther and Menno, AND Luther and Menno, as “we” would like to imagine. One at a time, milk to meat.

To an extent, due to tech, the world got to witness part of CK’s journey. The (invasive) visibility was different.
He didn’t present himself as a televangelist or (cult) leader. Or rock star. Which are more easily dismissed.

His gift seems to be the ability to get people, even Anabaptists, thinking. That’s a special gift, he might not have been aware.

Most of all, he didn’t say, “Follow me” .. he stated who he was following. That’s unusual.
So many are saying, “Follow me.” or, FOLLOW ME.
Some are adept at double talk, saying the words, “Follow Jesus” while acting out, “Follow me.”

[JohnH]

I’d be delighted if more Anabaptists took the direction CK did - including becoming gradually less political with time.

Unfortunately the current toxic media soup Anabaptists are immersing themselves in is making them get more and more political, and it’s frankly embarrassing to watch.

Every Christian must begin where they are, then grow from that place.
Not as unlike the earliest Catholic monks+priests, hundreds of years before Luther and Menno, AND Luther and Menno, as “we” would like to imagine. One at a time, milk to meat.

To an extent, due to tech, the world got to witness part of CK’s journey. The (invasive) visibility was different.
He didn’t present himself as a televangelist or (cult) leader. Or rock star. Which are more easily dismissed.

His gift seems to be the ability to get people, even Anabaptists, thinking. That’s a special gift, he might not have been aware.

Most of all, he didn’t say, “Follow me” .. he stated who he was following. That’s unusual.
So many are saying, “Follow me.” or, FOLLOW ME.
Some are adept at double talk, saying the words, “Follow Jesus” while acting out, “Follow me.”

Did you catch what I said about a toxic media soup?

[mike]

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"?

I would apply it at least to those who profess to be followers of Jesus, but whose life does not reflect an effort to follow his teachings in important ways.

That said, I don't think it is actually our place to usher anyone into heaven's gate. Again, that is up to God.

It is fascinating how after a person passes away, many of the less pleasant memories fade quickly, and how funerals so often become a time of 'ushering a person into heaven's gate' even when we really have no idea what that person's standing was with God. And we really can't know for sure for almost anyone, so I think it is wise to be really cautious about making definitive statements in that respect. That said, neither do we need to do the opposite, and I think it is fine to remember people who have passed away in terms of the good memories and the good things they have done.

[temporal1]

Did you catch what I said about a toxic media soup?

yes. but i’m not sure of what you mean, not being a witness, other than on forum. i won’t presume to know.

[Jazman]

Even though this gentleman isn't an Anabaptist/Menno, (at least I don't think so), I thought his analysis of the so-called "gospel" message given at the memorial to be helpful and also echoed the concerns of the two writers shared at the beginning of this op. He may be overly strident for some tastes, (at one point using the F__st word) but I think his overall approach of comparing the Biblical, Jesus Gospel with the ok-sounding but slightly twisted version at the memorial; is something we should consider if we truly want to follow Jesus and His Way of doing things and His Way of bringing His kingdom into more fullness on earth as it is in heaven.