Charlie Kirk Shot

[JohnH]

Garbage like this is an attack:

His funeral witnessed the confusing marriage of the church and state.

I disagree.

Charlie Kirk's friends spoke at the funeral. Some of them were musicians and sang music, like a favourite of mine, "Holy Forever". Some of his friends were Christians. Some were not. Some were politicians. Some were not. They were each allowed to say what they wanted to say.

At my own funeral I do not intend to police what people are saying, nor are people giving eulogies representatives of "church". We often have people at our own funerals who get up and share memories. Some of them aren't Christians at all. They are still welcome to speak at a funeral.

But that doesn't mean it's not confusing when some of these people promoted political hatreds and agendas. I don't think that's a good thing to do at a funeral, and it was really confusing in a Christian-themed funeral. Really, I think that kind of thing is inappropriate at any funeral, and dishonors the person who died.

To me, saying that is not a "posthumous attack" on Charlie Kirk.

Do you think non-Christians should be allowed to speak at a funeral?

[Robert]

But that doesn't mean it's not confusing when some of these people promoted political hatreds and agendas. I don't think that's a good thing to do at a funeral, and it was really confusing in a Christian-themed funeral. Really, I think that kind of thing is inappropriate at any funeral, and dishonors the person who died.

To me, saying that is not a "posthumous attack" on Charlie Kirk.

I would not have done what they did, but I can't decide for others. They have free will and the right to choose for themselves. There was several speakers I wished they did not have. I did like I do at other funerals of people of other denominations, I glean the good and ignore the parts I do not like. I still feel for the family and try to console them. Their grief is more important then my petty ideology. Funerals should not be a place to push ideology, for them or for me. If they do it, I should not commit the same infraction and do the same.

[Bootstrap]

But that doesn't mean it's not confusing when some of these people promoted political hatreds and agendas. I don't think that's a good thing to do at a funeral, and it was really confusing in a Christian-themed funeral. Really, I think that kind of thing is inappropriate at any funeral, and dishonors the person who died.

To me, saying that is not a "posthumous attack" on Charlie Kirk.

Do you think non-Christians should be allowed to speak at a funeral?

If I were planning a funeral, I would think carefully about who I want to speak at it, what the message should be, and what honors the person who was killed. A funeral is a statement.

I would not want to have laws about what people are allowed to say at funerals, but I would like to choose who speaks at my funeral. Or have someone close to me choose speakers close to my heart.

[JohnH]

But that doesn't mean it's not confusing when some of these people promoted political hatreds and agendas. I don't think that's a good thing to do at a funeral, and it was really confusing in a Christian-themed funeral. Really, I think that kind of thing is inappropriate at any funeral, and dishonors the person who died.

To me, saying that is not a "posthumous attack" on Charlie Kirk.

Do you think non-Christians should be allowed to speak at a funeral?

If I were planning a funeral, I would think carefully about who I want to speak at it, what the message should be, and what honors the person who was killed. A funeral is a statement.

I would not want to have laws about what people are allowed to say at funerals, but I would like to choose who speaks at my funeral. Or have someone close to me choose speakers close to my heart.

I expect to be free of planning duties at my funeral.

[Bootstrap]

If I were planning a funeral, I would think carefully about who I want to speak at it, what the message should be, and what honors the person who was killed. A funeral is a statement.

I would not want to have laws about what people are allowed to say at funerals, but I would like to choose who speaks at my funeral. Or have someone close to me choose speakers close to my heart.

I expect to be free of planning duties at my funeral.

Do you plan to ask everyone on MennoNet to speak about whatever they want at your funeral? Have you told your wife to do that if you die?

[JohnH]

Do you plan to ask everyone on MennoNet to speak about whatever they want at your funeral? Have you told your wife to do that if you die?

I don't anticipate having any control over what happens at my funeral.

In my church, members typically have funerals held at one of our churches. It is an open service, like other worship services. After the worship service is over, there is usually a meal served, and then a time for sharing of memories. Anyone can get up and speak. Occasionally, someone gets up and speaks and says something embarrassing, or is someone who is mentally ill, etc. who says something that makes no sense. This is just the way it is because we don't try to control people, particularly at funerals.

[Bootstrap]

Do you plan to ask everyone on MennoNet to speak about whatever they want at your funeral? Have you told your wife to do that if you die?

I don't anticipate having any control over what happens at my funeral.

In my church, members typically have funerals held at one of our churches. It is an open service, like other worship services. After the worship service is over, there is usually a meal served, and then a time for sharing of memories. Anyone can get up and speak. Occasionally, someone gets up and speaks and says something embarrassing, or is someone who is mentally ill, etc. who says something that makes no sense. This is just the way it is because we don't try to control people, particularly at funerals.

If I were at your funeral and someone stood up and told dirty jokes, I would find that confusing and weird. If I said so, I would not mean that as an attack on you personally, my criticism would be aimed at the person who told the dirty jokes.

[JohnH]

If I were at your funeral and someone stood up and told dirty jokes, I would find that confusing and weird. If I said so, I would not mean that as an attack on you personally, my criticism would be aimed at the person who told the dirty jokes.

I attended a funeral once and someone got up and expressed he was very unhappy with the rumours being spread about him, and then enumerated what they were. I didn't even know such rumours were going around, and neither did anyone else, until he told us. Nonetheless, nobody cut him off or tried to stop him from speaking. He had a close relationship with the deceased for many years, so it seemed fair to let him speak, even if he seemed quite offended and upset.

If someone is brutally assassinated, then I think we can expect some people to get up and share very negative feelings about the assassins, particularly if the people are not plain, conservative, Anabaptist Christians, who are expected not to do such things.

[Jazman]

The Beachys in Kansas have always been a bastion of liberalism/progressivism. Not at all surprising to see this.

I'm not sure what you read in the article, but I read a Christ-centered commentary on a current past event. (Thanks QuietlyListening for posting...it's a really good, wise Anabaptist perspective and coda? to the thread here)
It appears that the writer's community, the "Beachys in Kansas" as you refer to them, have a right-wing political problem/drift...not a liberal/progressive one.

What stood out to me in that piece when I first read it a few months ago was "While I count him as a fellow believer..." In my view, this makes much of what the writer has to say irrelevant. If we as Anabaptists are going to openly count Charlie Kirk as a fellow believer in Christ, we can say whatever else we want, but the message we send is that the differences between Anabaptists and American evangelicals are not that significant. I do view this like JohnH as a liberal/progressive perspective within Anabaptism, and what is likely to happen is that Anabaptist young people will make the easy switch between this perspective and the garden-variety evangelical viewpoint. There's not that much difference left anymore between the two in some quarters. I've written about my thoughts on this in article format, and if anyone is interested, PM me for a link.

I see your point... but I appreciated the authors leaning towards generosity (it is something I fail at but aspire to) Especially in public pieces like this, I feel the Christ-like thing to do is lean that way, even if one has deep disagreements with the other brother... I think that's better for our youth/my children to observe than some of the other ways claiming Christians or Mennos deal with these messy issues at times. But we may have to agree to disagree...
It may be a reflection of my 'liberal' drift?-low bar? I personally try to consider anyone who affirms the Nicene Creed/basic of basic claims of the Christian faith as brothers/sisters - so for me this includes everyone from Catholics to OO Amish and everyone in between, including many MAGA/Christian Nationalist types - even though I have huge problems with many of their beliefs and practice. A close relative of mine, at least as of a few years ago, is essentially, although not self-claiming - a neo-Nazi (but a very devout Protestant evangelical one!) They may have grown out of that; I'm not sure because we try to avoid talking about politics/etc... but despite all of that I consider them a brother in Christ (I could be wrong, but I would only know that, if I was unhindered by my sinful human reasoning and knew the complete will of God regarding that person)

I feel at peace with trying for that more generous/open? stance; if you wouldn't feel at peace doing that, I bless you in your differing approach/convictions in which God has called you.

[mike]

I'm not sure what you read in the article, but I read a Christ-centered commentary on a current past event. (Thanks QuietlyListening for posting...it's a really good, wise Anabaptist perspective and coda? to the thread here)
It appears that the writer's community, the "Beachys in Kansas" as you refer to them, have a right-wing political problem/drift...not a liberal/progressive one.

What stood out to me in that piece when I first read it a few months ago was "While I count him as a fellow believer..." In my view, this makes much of what the writer has to say irrelevant. If we as Anabaptists are going to openly count Charlie Kirk as a fellow believer in Christ, we can say whatever else we want, but the message we send is that the differences between Anabaptists and American evangelicals are not that significant. I do view this like JohnH as a liberal/progressive perspective within Anabaptism, and what is likely to happen is that Anabaptist young people will make the easy switch between this perspective and the garden-variety evangelical viewpoint. There's not that much difference left anymore between the two in some quarters. I've written about my thoughts on this in article format, and if anyone is interested, PM me for a link.

I see your point... but I appreciated the authors leaning towards generosity (it is something I fail at but aspire to) Especially in public pieces like this, I feel the Christ-like thing to do is lean that way, even if one has deep disagreements with the other brother... I think that's better for our youth/my children to observe than some of the other ways claiming Christians or Mennos deal with these messy issues at times. But we may have to agree to disagree...
It may be a reflection of my 'liberal' drift?-low bar? I personally try to consider anyone who affirms the Nicene Creed/basic of basic claims of the Christian faith as brothers/sisters - so for me this includes everyone from Catholics to OO Amish and everyone in between, including many MAGA/Christian Nationalist types - even though I have huge problems with many of their beliefs and practice. A close relative of mine, at least as of a few years ago, is essentially, although not self-claiming - a neo-Nazi (but a very devout Protestant evangelical one!) They may have grown out of that; I'm not sure because we try to avoid talking about politics/etc... but despite all of that I consider them a brother in Christ (I could be wrong, but I would only know that, if I was unhindered by my sinful human reasoning and knew the complete will of God regarding that person)

I feel at peace with trying for that more generous/open? stance; if you wouldn't feel at peace doing that, I bless you in your differing approach/convictions in which God has called you.

Whether or not someone who appears to be in major violation of Jesus' teaching is still in fact a brother in Lord is a question not for us to decide, and it feels wrong to take that role on ourselves. It creates confusion. There's a whole discussion to be had of how to respect the sincerely held beliefs of others without creating the impression that we are quite sure they are followers of Jesus. To call someone a 'brother' or that we expect to 'see them in heaven' is a pretty clear statement. To call someone a "Christian" because that's how they identify doesn't seem quite so much so. It gets murky. And I don't like to go around calling people 'so-called Christians' either.