Charlie Kirk Shot

[Bootstrap]

I think this could be addressed to any Christian in the United States, in any church, regardless of where they land on the political spectrum.

We are at a turning point.

How will we respond?

Will we embrace Christ's words that “my kingdom is not of this world"?
Will we embrace the instructions of Peter to live as exiles and sojourners?
Will we accept the call to be ambassadors of another kingdom both in this country and throughout the world?
Will we love our enemies and pray for them?
Will we become passionate followers of Christ or will we remain the comfortable quiet in the land?
Will our people be steeped in Scripture and prayer or in social media, entertainment, and distraction?
Will the heritage we pass on to our children be one only marked by hard work and the blind pursuit of prosperity? Or will they have seen us sell all in order to gain the greatest Treasure of all?
Will the Master say “Well done!" when we stand before Him?

[JohnH]

I'm not talking specifically about the Kansans. But I think in the conservative Mennonite context, it would be quite expected to see right-wing political problem/drift, as in fact a hallmark of one becoming more liberal and progressive. When first generation Plain people "drift/become liberal" that rarely means they are attract to left-wing politics at all (that comes later or in different environments), but rather we see them becoming more in love with right-wing issues over the traditional aloofness of their churchs doctrines.

Right. So the first sign is that some people start doing things like putting on Trump bumper stickers, listening to various right-wing podcasts, and generally being almost indistinguishable from their right-wing neighbours, since most plain people live in right-wing-dominated areas.

With time, some of those who consider themselves "enlightened" end up drifting towards the mainstream, progressive left-wing, who then look down on those who are somewhat right wing. (Returning to their roots as being a peculiar people who do not meddle in the affairs of the world seems to never quite be on the agenda for either of these wings.) Just like the folks who crave acceptance from their worldly, right-wing neighbours, these folks crave acceptance from the broader, mainstream, progressive left-wing world.

The Kansas Beachy community is almost a caricature at this point, because they were once notorious for being into all kinds of right-wing nonsense including wild conspiracy theories; now that that has run its course, they are notorious for being liberal/progressive.

The standard, "plain" response such as one might find amongst actually separated people like Amish or (if you'll forgive the self-congratulation) the Holdemans is that we would simply not discuss this at all. Some of our members might be a bit tempted to get "into politics" but overall there is a certain profaneness about discussing such things where it is basically equivalent to discussing last weekend's Eagles game or the Indians score. Sure, it happens, but it's something we know we should really avoid.

It may be pertinent to ask what the cause of the drift is. Are church members listening to the radio? They will not keep a clear mind if they are listening to AM talk radio all day (or a tasteful NPR FM station in the lower end of the band, for those who are a bit more enlightened). Are the podcasts they choose seemingly all highly political ones? Did they even know who Charlie Kirk was before he was shot? For reference, most of the people I go to church with didn't, and I barely knew he was. My last memory of him he was that he was not a fan of Trump, which should give you an idea of just how little I paid attention to this.

In an interview with Wired during the 2016 Republican National Convention, Kirk said that while he "was not the world's biggest Donald Trump fan", he would vote for him, and that Trump's candidacy made Turning Point's mission more difficult.

It was quite easy to predict who, in Anabaptist circles around me, knew exactly who Charlie Kirk was, had no idea who he was, or had a vague idea who.

[JohnH]

I think this could be addressed to any Christian in the United States, in any church, regardless of where they land on the political spectrum.

We are at a turning point.

How will we respond?

Will we embrace Christ's words that “my kingdom is not of this world"?
Will we embrace the instructions of Peter to live as exiles and sojourners?
Will we accept the call to be ambassadors of another kingdom both in this country and throughout the world?
Will we love our enemies and pray for them?
Will we become passionate followers of Christ or will we remain the comfortable quiet in the land?
Will our people be steeped in Scripture and prayer or in social media, entertainment, and distraction?
Will the heritage we pass on to our children be one only marked by hard work and the blind pursuit of prosperity? Or will they have seen us sell all in order to gain the greatest Treasure of all?
Will the Master say “Well done!" when we stand before Him?

I take it with a grain of salt when the person saying is someone who has been at the vanguard of leading families and churches into a more worldly direction.

[Bootstrap]

I think this could be addressed to any Christian in the United States, in any church, regardless of where they land on the political spectrum.

We are at a turning point.

How will we respond?

Will we embrace Christ's words that “my kingdom is not of this world"?
Will we embrace the instructions of Peter to live as exiles and sojourners?
Will we accept the call to be ambassadors of another kingdom both in this country and throughout the world?
Will we love our enemies and pray for them?
Will we become passionate followers of Christ or will we remain the comfortable quiet in the land?
Will our people be steeped in Scripture and prayer or in social media, entertainment, and distraction?
Will the heritage we pass on to our children be one only marked by hard work and the blind pursuit of prosperity? Or will they have seen us sell all in order to gain the greatest Treasure of all?
Will the Master say “Well done!" when we stand before Him?

I take it with a grain of salt when the person saying is someone who has been at the vanguard of leading families and churches into a more worldly direction.

I take it with a grain of salt when someone avoids endorsing obvious truth and attacks the person who said it instead. It's always easy to mount a personal attack. It does not lead us in the way of virtue. It's probably a sign that the habits of the political sphere have influenced us more than they should.

I think the checklist in the quote is very relevant to all of us. I have no idea who wrote it.

[JohnH]

I take it with a grain of salt when someone avoids endorsing obvious truth and attacks the person who said it instead. It's always easy to mount a personal attack. It does not lead us in the way of virtue.

That's an interesting thing to say, since the entire gist of this person's post was a posthumous attack on Charlie Kirk instead of endorsing the obvious truths of what Charlie Kirk said. I don't think that leads us in the way of virtue, either.

[Bootstrap]

I take it with a grain of salt when someone avoids endorsing obvious truth and attacks the person who said it instead. It's always easy to mount a personal attack. It does not lead us in the way of virtue.

That's an interesting thing to say, since the entire gist of this person's post was a posthumous attack on Charlie Kirk instead of endorsing the obvious truths of what Charlie Kirk said. I don't think that leads us in the way of virtue, either.

I don't think it was an attack on Charlie Kirk, not at all. But it does not endorse Saint Kirk as the guiding light for all Christians either.

[JohnH]

I take it with a grain of salt when someone avoids endorsing obvious truth and attacks the person who said it instead. It's always easy to mount a personal attack. It does not lead us in the way of virtue.

That's an interesting thing to say, since the entire gist of this person's post was a posthumous attack on Charlie Kirk instead of endorsing the obvious truths of what Charlie Kirk said. I don't think that leads us in the way of virtue, either.

I don't think it was an attack on Charlie Kirk, not at all. But it does not endorse Saint Kirk as the guiding light for all Christians either.

Garbage like this is an attack:

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

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.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

I think you should police what's being said. If somebody says something at your funeral that isn't Biblical, you should sit right up in the casket and set them straight! Don't let them get away with preaching heresy just because you're dead (but not yet gone).

[JohnH]

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.

I think you should police what's being said. If somebody says something at your funeral that isn't Biblical, you should sit right up in the casket and set them straight! Don't let them get away with preaching heresy just because you're dead (but not yet gone).

Well, there were a few subgroups Christians who were praying for Mr Kirk to rise from the dead.

[Bootstrap]

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.