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
Death is NOT OK
If you are struggling with the death of a loved one, human or pet, please be free. You are not in bondage to “accepting it” or moving on. You are free to never accept it. Don’t worry, the body and mind will adjust and you will adapt through a new homeostasis because part of you is gone that you will never get back. You can be happy again because your body and mind will create a new normal for you.
This is because God doesn’t accept death. The Bible never states that “death is a normal process of life.” That’s pure nonsense. In fact, the Bible states that death is God’s “enemy” and will be the “last enemy that He will defeat.” This is one reason I love being a nurse; I am fighting God’s enemy. When we lose the fight, it’s not ok, but we know that we will eventually win the war through Christ. My father was a Mason, and I am not advocating for Free Masonry, but during their memorial service for my dad, the speaker, arrayed in his Mason uniform with a sword at his side, said, “We are here today to celebrate the life of Harry Dohse who has been struck down by this world.” I love that. That is so true. Death is not a natural process of life, it’s a homicide committed by a fallen world.
Of late, my favorite Bible verse is Hebrews 2:14,15, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” It’s ok to fear an enemy, though we overcome that fear in order to defeat them. Christ died to free us from enslavement to fear. But that doesn’t make death a part of life; death is God’s enemy. If you are not ok with death, that’s ok because God isn’t either. As nurses, we see it all the time with families and even doctors: requests or orders that reflect denial concerning the inevitable, and I am totally ok with that because death should be denied. Absolutely, I will reorder those eyedrops or Atorvastatin right away. This reflects last vestiges of hope, and is part of the mourning process. The patient is 100 years old and is Full Code? Why is that not ok? Too much life? Why would death be given permission at all? Has death become our friend because our life isn’t what it was?
We should never be in a hurry to surrender to death. In the dying process, dealing with it holistically and embracing God’s enemy is a fine line.
paul
Where’s Steve? How Lawson’s Response Could Salvage the Church and Glorify Christ
Even though I believe church is a lie and nothing but a salvation marketing business, the church ought to consult me on many matters. I would even do it for free because I am a nice guy. As you know, the latest scandal trending in the church is the Steve Lawson disaster. This one is so bad that the ministries involved are trying to move on ASAP, and the usual clichés seem woefully worn-out and hollow. This one is really, really bad.
Or is it? When I went to church back in the day, a Reformed church, a respected elder had to resign under similar circumstances. The actions of this elder after his “fall” still speak to me today, about 24 years later. First of all, his post-actions emphasized the fact that he was still a member of that church and that was important. After the morning “worship service” (I believe the whole of our lives are worship and service) where he publicly confessed, he never missed a so-called “service” and remained faithful to the choir and other non-leadership ministries that he was involved in. If he wanted to send a message that everything else he did as a church member was important…the message was received loud and clear.
Also, when he walked forward to address the congregation with his confession, his wife was right behind him and sat in the front row while he spoke. I remember her powerful demeanor like it was yesterday, and I picture it in my mind some 24 years later. She was overtly defiant, as in, “Nothing is going to stand between me and this marriage.” The former elder and his family modeled godliness in that congregation for many years afterward. She later supported him in a significant professional endeavor.
So, where’s Steve? Imagine if his response was the same, and what a powerful testimony it would be. That’s where the focus would be, not the damage that has been done. These guys (the Reformed crowd in general) constantly preach about our response to trials, but I can tell you, so far, their response is becoming worse than the original sin.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment