Bad Theology Will Neutralize Turning Point USA Starting with Carte Blanche Forgiveness
Turning Point USA was well on its way to transforming American politics. Fact is, Donald Trump probably won the 2024 election because of Charlie Kirk—Charlie Kirk was a contemporary phenomenon. Continuing the success and impact of TPUSA was going to be a tall order without Charlie Kirk because the core of its success was his open dialogue on college campuses. He was an ardent persuader, and believed the key to all of the world’s problems is dialogue, and he is probably right. And he was good at it.
Much thought was required to answer the following question: without Kirk, how could the continuing success of TPUSA be maximized? Apparently, the answer follows: make TPUSA into a church. That’s a really bad idea for many reasons.
First, since when is church the sultan of open dialogue? At least 50% of the leaders involved with TPUSA, including Kirk’s wife, are Catholic. Does anyone know the history of the Catholic Church? Persuasion through dialogue is hardly its strongest characteristic.
Secondly, if you want to make TPUSA a religious movement, with continued success, that will necessarily include Protestants, who are not Catholics. Already, notable Protestant leaders like Ken Ham are barking about the false religion and non-religion present at Kirk’s memorial. So, here we go…already.
Yes, no doubt, Kirk was a good Christian guy who depended heavily on God, but TPUSA was an organization focused on persuading political opponents in the arena of ideas. Apparently, he was still working through the functional aspect of his faith and was not officially a member of any particular religious group, but it is rumored that he was leaning towards Catholicism (It is reported by some that his wife is Catholic).
Please think about this: what is the standard M.O. of church according to all orthodoxies regarding disagreement? Right; shunning, excommunication, treating some like a “tax collector.” Do research on how tax collectors were treated in the 1st century, and you will understand what Jesus was talking about.
Venue is reality. I am a nurse who happens to be a Christian. Newsflash: non-Christian nurses can be good nurses, and many are, and I work with them. How dumb would it be for me to imply that they really can’t be good nurses if they aren’t Christian? They only appear to be good nurses, but really aren’t. That would create drama, which distracts from quality care. But that’s Martin Luther ideology in a nutshell. Everything is either evil or good with no in-between. Hence, the Christian Blue Book where Christian companies advertise because unless your auto mechanic is a Christian, he or she can’t be trusted to fix your car right. That’s stupid, but that’s church.
In contrast, TPUSA, echoed the challenge to “prove me wrong,” rather than implying that an opponent’s ideas were already stupid by default. Take note about theology debates: no one can be persuaded because even if you lose the debate, your evil opponent only appeared to have the better argument, which is impossible, because of your authoritative orthodoxy. And that’s the rub: church is authority based; it’s true because the church says it’s true regardless of validity-based logic. Do you see how any intermingling with church is completely contraindicated for TPUSA?
And, so, it begins at Kirk’s memorial service. Kirk’s wife announced that she has forgiven Charlie’s assassin. UGH. I have written 16 articles on blank check forgiveness, which can be read here. https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2022/01/27/the-blank-check-forgiveness-archives-3/#comments. Look, undoubtably, Kirk’s wife is a phenomenal woman who is echoing church orthodoxy during an emotional time in her life when we are susceptible to bad ideas, particularly when they are of the religious sort, but her statement makes my point.
Essentially, what is being said by that statement?
First, she is obeying God by forgiving her husband’s killer. So, what is she saying to every victim who hasn’t forgiven the perpetrator?
Secondly, how do we know God has forgiven the assassin? And if he hasn’t, what does that say about her forgiveness?
Thirdly, if she has forgiven the assassin, how does that change her relationship to the assassin? Can you forgive someone without fundamental changes to the relationship?
Fourthly, this church ideology is based on the biblical verse, “Forgive others the same way God has forgiven you,” so, how does God forgive us? Answer: when we repent. Has the assassin repented? In fact, Jesus said to confront those who have offended us, and IF they repent, forgive them.
So, fifthly, blank check forgiveness is blatantly unbiblical.
Sixthly, biblically, forgiveness is always on the other side of the coin regarding justice. In other words, grace circumvents deserved and just punishment. Hence, Jesus stated that if a perpetrator doesn’t repent after multiple chances, there are just consequences (treat them like an unbeliever and a tax collector). Take note that these biblical principles are in context of relationships with believers, much less unbelievers. So, in cases of unbelievers, how much more should they be unforgiven?
Seventh, notice how, per the usual, church puts the burden on the victim instead of the perpetrator. Charlie Kirk’s wife stands before millions confessing with tears that she has forgiven her husband’s murderer? Am I here right now? God help us.
“But Paul, look at the thousands that were at the memorial, and the thousands of requests for new TPUSA chapters!” Yes, a religious revival, and that’s the problem. Historically, religious revivals peak and fizzle out. This needed to be an American Revolution revival, which has lasted 250 years, and by the way, God is all for it. That’s why it has lasted 250 years. And it’s why Isreal is still on the map. By the way, longevity is indicative of life.
I hope my prediction is wrong, but after all, church is a failing business model that hangs on through tyranny, propaganda, and fear. Statistics concerning church trends are abysmal. TPUSA was predicated on finding truth through the best logical arguments, and the freedom to do so, not truth based on hundreds of different versions of church authority. Chaos does not ensue through individual ideas, because what is “self-evident” is also common to man and the law of God written on the heart and mitigated by conscience. Open debate leads people to that commonality.
And if your practical wisdom makes life better, that will make people curious about your thoughts on God. That’s how it works.
paul
The Hijacking of Charlie Kirk
The church is a hijacker. It began by hijacking the ekklesia, which was never an institution and never functioned as one, and it was never called, “church.” In fact, “church” is not even a biblical word. People will protest this assertion by citing many versus from English translations where “church” appears. I kid you not.
Then, during the American Revolution, the church hijacked the Enlightenment movement, which was the driving force behind the American Revolution, and renamed it “The Great Awakening.” Today, we hear incessantly that America was “founded on Christian principles.” Hold on to that thought for a moment because I want to revisit it later; the idea that principles are either good or evil, and not common.
How did it happen? The hijacking of Charlie Kirk is almost a perfect prototype. Kirk’s movement, Turning Point USA, was primarily a commonsense conservatism movement, while Kirk was also a professing Christian. Actually, Kirk, an independent thinker, was more of a seeker who hadn’t landed totally on any particular orthodoxy, though his wife is Catholic.
However, the bulk of the movement was spawned by conservatism, not religion. In light of Kirk’s assassination, religion has seized the opportunity to hijack the movement. The full court press hijacking officially took place during the memorial service on Sunday complete with contemporary “praise and worship” music and several atonement-based gospels by pastors and political figures.
Church is by definition an institution, and is driven by an atonement gospel rather than a new birth gospel. EVERY sermon during the memorial was an atonement gospel. In other words, sins are only “covered,” and not ended. Churches need reoccurring monthly revenue, and obviously, an ending of sin doesn’t fit an RMR business model. Since Kirk’s death, thousands have been encouraged to “join a church.” I haven’t checked, but I am fairly confident that church attendance has skyrocketed in recent days.
So, be sure of this: instead of Turning Point USA being a conservative movement that includes Churchians, it is now a church movement that includes conservatives. And more and more, the Trump administration is appearing the same way. The danger here is this: people who have no need for church or religion, share common principles according to God-given conscience, and their exclusion is at least inferred if not clearly stated by in-your-face religion. If you offend them enough by constantly calling them sinners, they invariably end up on the other side to make a statement, or just disengage from the arena of ideas all together since they are neither “good” or “evil.” Is the left totally whacko because you have to be one or the other?
By the way, Trump’s huge popularity is due to his focus on common, practical ideas. He is a man of the forgotten and left behind people, but now we have his cabinet members preaching the church gospel at Kirk’s memorial. Trust me on this: if church can also hijack the Trump administration, they will.
Let me be clear: Senator Tim Kaine is an insufferable dumbass, but yet, we should note something that he stated recently; “The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Sharia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians and other religious minorities, and they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling. I think the motto over the Supreme Court is ‘equal justice under law,’ — the oath that you and I take pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not arbitrarily defined natural rights.”
If you want to know what Kaine is talking about, you need to look no further than America’s history when the Puritans ruled over the colonies. That would be the same Puritans lauded by the American church. In no church anywhere are they not lifted up as heroes of the faith. Yet, historically, they were superstitious tyrants that Britian wouldn’t even suffer.
Then, we have Ted Cruze’s response to Kaine: “I just walked into the hearing as he was saying that, and I almost fell out of my chair, because that ‘radical and dangerous notion’ — in his words — is literally the founding principle upon which the United States of America was created,” He then went on to quote the Declaration of Independence, citing, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator’ — not by government, not by the Democratic National Committee, but by God-‘with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”
Do you see the twist? Do you see the slight of hand? The source is not anyone’s interpretation of what God intended, which is inevitable whether a Puritan or an Ayatollah, the source, according to the Declaration of Independence, is what is “SELF-EVIDENT.” Get it? Common sense. What evidently works in real life, according to God-given conscience, and common knowledge hammered out in the arena of ideas. These are Enlightenment ideas, not religious ideas. And frankly, this was the hallmark of Kirk’s organization. Was.
With all this being said, what is going on is interesting. What is going is massive functional ecumenicalism. Oh yes, it will be denied intellectually, but functionally, it’s massive ecumenicalism. Was not the Arizona memorial an unprecedented massive lovefest? Yes it was, and everything but the kitchen sink was in there hugging and kissing. Do I think those of the New Calvinist movement will have to fall in line or lose cultural relevance? Yes, absolutely.
The church is a hijacker, and perhaps the result, particularly their latest conquest, is a segue to the latter-day ecumenical movement we have been watching for.
paul
It’s About Trust, Not Free Speech
For the Xenia, Ohio School Board, It Should be a Matter of Trust, Not Free Speech
RE: Two educators placed on administrative leave pending investigation.
Public servants like doctors, nurses, police officers, teachers, and judges, only qualify as such if they can be trusted. What does that mean? It means they can be trusted to apply their skills to the best of their abilities, and equally. For a judge, it’s equal application of the law. Obviously, anyone who cannot be trusted with evidence is not, and should not be, a policeman. When we go to see a healthcare professional for medical treatment, we certainly hope they don’t think we are suffering because of “karma.” And lastly, teachers should respect the right of a child to have equal and quality education. Doctors, nurses, police officers, teachers, and judges, who cannot be trusted, are pseudo professionals.
Hence, public statements by those who hold professional credentials are not merely a free speech issue; a public statement may self-expose someone as a pseudo professional. For example, if a doctor or a nurse thinks people of a certain political bent deserve to die, they can’t be trusted by everyone. That’s the definition of a public servant: they can be trusted by everyone. Legally, we say that “justice is blind,” because Lady Justice is blindfolded while holding a set of scales. This is also true for all public servants; they treat everyone the same because they can’t see anyone that would cause them to misapply their profession because of bias.
But what about the ability to separate opinions from the execution of a profession? That depends on the statement. If the statement is a mere opinion, people are likely to believe the opinion can be separated from professionalism. However, if the statement includes malice, and even genocidal thoughts, that is a different matter and is contraindicated for public service. There is a difference between disagreeing with a dead person and celebrating their death because of the opinion.
I will conclude by applying the nursing profession as an illustration. Aside from the fact that my wife was put in grave danger by two nurses at a hospital because they incorrectly assumed she is anti-vax, I will tell you as a practicing nurse that it is ill-advised to go anywhere for medical treatment while wearing political apparel. How did we get here? Why do so many nurses allow their opinions to distort nurse judgement based on what some people “deserve” or don’t deserve? The answer follows: to a significant degree, growing up, they were taught by so-called professionals that think their opinions should be the final word, even upon pain of death.
Nobody has ever lost their job for being anti-2nd Amendment. And no auto mechanic is going to lose their job because they stated publicly that Charlie Kirk deserved to die, because they work on cars, not people. Judges, policemen, medical professionals, and teachers work on people, and like all Americans, they are free to publicly expose the fact that they are unqualified to do so. Again, that is also free speech, but public servants must have everyone’s trust. That is the very definition of a public servant.
Paul M. Dohse,
ADN, LPN
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment