Turning Point USA ignores the warning of Matthew 6:24

The money cannon being worked by 'Bang Girls' at the Turing Point USA conference

Every organization needs funding.  Compassion International has child sponsors, the Salvation Army has their kettle drive at Christmas, and your local high school sports boosters probably has a 50/50 drawing at home football or basketball games.  How an organization generates the revenue it needs to fulfill its mission is an important question, especially if that organization purports to be a Christian one or to champion Christian ethics.  Case in point, Turning Point USA, founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk, who has a partnership with Liberty University (the Falkirk Center along with Eric Metaxas: The Downward Spiral of Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas the person interviewing Metaxas is Kirk) which gave him an honorary doctorate.  At the Republican National Convention in 2016, Kirk said this, “I have never had the opportunity to visit a university that embodies the teachings of Jesus Christ better than Liberty University, If you decide to profess your faith and say you are a Christian, this world is going to make it difficult. For those of you who are believers in Jesus Christ, wear that badge proudly.”  It seems clear that Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA are seeking to present themselves as a 'Christian' organization, or at least one aligned with Christian ethics.

Which brings us to this extraordinary moment at the just completed Turning Point USA conference where the event sponsor, Bang Energy (they make energy drinks) utilized young women in skin-tight revealing outfits (whom they referred to as 'Bang Girls', itself a disgusting double entendre) to work a 'money cannon' shooting out into the crowd of (unmasked during the height of the pandemic, another troubling aspect of this event) screaming young people.  There is so much wrong with this moment that it almost seems self-explanatory why this organization should forfeit any credibility with, or access to, Christian universities or partnerships with Christian organizations {If you want to see the video of the event for yourself, or read Dreher's similar criticism: Charlie Kirk's Hooters Conservatism - by Rod Dreher at the American Conservative}

You can be a Christian conservative, or a Christian liberal, you can be a Christian believer in the Free Market, or a Christian advocate for a Planned Economy.  Being a Christian does not require that we adopt a set of beliefs regarding politics, or even become involved in politics at all {Some would disagree, but I believe that minority view to be in error: Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way}.

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

The Bible spends an enormous amount of its space discussing the morality of money and the danger of greed.  It is a topic addressed pointedly in the Law of Moses with the requirements to leave a portion of the field unharvested for the gleaners and the debt-relief program of the Year of Jubilee.  It is one of a handful of topics that Jesus repeatedly addresses, going so far as to tell his followers that they must choose between loving God and loving money.  Long story short, the ethics of how a Christian should act toward money is a field with a wide and firm foundation.

It is no secret that the Church in America struggles with materialism.  This nation is where the heretical Prosperity Gospel was invented, and where it continues to thrive.  It is also well known that many of the Church's worst abuses and most scandalous sins have involved the love of money (and/or earthly power, the two are intertwined).  The only other sin that has plagued the Church as readily as the love of money/power is lust, here too the Church has had its most shameful moments, especially regarding the failings of its leaders.

Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

From a Christian perspective, things like pornography, prostitution, and promiscuity are sins to be rejected and temptations to be avoided.  The Church certainly struggles with how it portrays the ethics of human sexuality, but we need to do significantly better than using sexuality to entice people to purchase products (the foundation of much of the advertising industry, I know, that's fodder for another post).

As I said before, if your study of the Word of God and your commitment to discipleship leads you toward advocating conservative political views, so be it.  If your study and commitment leads you toward advocating liberal political views, then do that instead.  Whichever direction our politics may take us, if the road is sponsored by the love of money and lust, it is NOT a Christian path.

Why take the time to write about Turning Point USA or Charlie Kirk?  Two reasons: (1) My Facebook feed is filled with memes and links that people share from the organization, (2) they claim to represent Christianity against their 'godless' political opponents.

The American Church needs to do better than this type of affiliation, for it only feeds our own failings of greed and lust and makes a mockery of the name of Christ.  Charlie Kirk believes he's fighting a Culture War to save America, the problem is that this version of America is the one that Christianity should be denouncing, not embracing.

Sermon Video: The Right to become Children of God - John 1:12-13

 In response to those to did not recognize or receive Jesus, John writes of the gift received by ALL who did receive him. Not only that, John emphasizes that those 'who believed in his name' will also be given the gift, reminding us that it is not our knowledge/wisdom that saves us, but the work of Jesus. What is this gift? The right to become a child of God. All of humanity are in one sense the children of God as image bearers, but in this much deeper and necessary sense, only those who receive (believe in/put their hope/trust in) Jesus will have a relationship with God and be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the greatest gift every offered to humanity, it only need be accepted by faith to be applied.

The downward spiral of Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas

At a recent rally, noted author Eric Metaxas, whose book on Bonhoeffer was a tremendous commercial success (Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy), but which has subsequently been challenged by historians and Bonhoeffer's descendants as an inaccurate portrayal, called Americans who are unwilling to shed blood over the election a parallel to the Germans who stood by while Hitler took power {thus equating, at least on some level, Biden/Harris with Hitler's regime}.  "Everybody who is not hopped up about this … you are the Germans that looked the other way when Hitler was preparing to do what he was preparing to do. Unfortunately, I don’t see how you can see it any other way."  If you're not on board with Metaxas about the election, you're no better than a Nazi enabler!  To top it off, Metaxas sees NO other way to evaluate the current state of America.

I knew nothing about Metaxas when I read the Bonhoeffer book {like many books, I found it at the bookstore, thought it looked interesting, and bought it}, and knew little else about him until recently when he has become extremely political, militantly so.  {To the point of advocating killing in the name of 'fixing' the election: “We need to fight to the death, to the last drop of blood, because it’s worth it.”}

Eric Metaxas' American Apocalypse - by Rod Dreher at the American Conservative {Shared as a source for the Metaxas' quotes/video, not an endorsement.  I don't think Dreher's idea of cultural withdrawal (as the polar opposite of militant partisanship) is the path forward either; here's my response to his book: Fight or Flight? Self-Segregation is the death of the Church's Gospel mission  Dreher himself is, with some irony, far more political than I am willing to be.}

Here are Metaxas' own words from an interview when his book on Bonhoeffer was released: "Bonhoeffer was not a liberal or a conservative, but a Christian. He was zealous for God’s perspective on things, and God’s perspective is inevitably wider than the standard parochial political points of view. It sometimes forces us toward a liberal view and sometimes toward a conservative view." {On Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Six Questions for Eric Metaxas Adjust Share By Scott Horton on December 23, 2010, Harpers Magazine}

However the road led to this point where Metaxas' is on the precipice of violence for political ends, it is sad/troubling/frightening to see Metaxas ignore what he seemed to have known about Bonhoeffer, that being a Christian comes first before one's own political views, and especially the truth that God's view is wider than our incessant partisan squabbles.

This sentiment is extremely dangerous: “So who cares what I can prove in the courts? This is right. This happened, and I am going to do anything I can to uncover this horror, this evil.”  Partisanship does not require Truth, or even truth.  Not an acceptable Christian viewpoint {Christian Worldview self-destruction: A culture without Facts is a culture without Truth}

Eric Metaxas interviewed by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA {The interview where the quotes in Dreher's essay originate; Kirk likewise elevates partisan politics above Christianity and invokes God's name/will to further his politics}

Partisan Political Christianity is one of the Church's greatest stains, its most horrendous evils were committed under that guise (think 4th Crusade, Inquisition, 30 Years War, etc.}, but it is also 100% illegitimate, an abomination that bears no true allegiance to the Cross of Jesus Christ.  Jesus' kingdom was not of this world, and neither is ours.

That a significant portion of the Church in America is trending in this dangerous direction, hard, is clear, that it will lead to disaster and self-destruction is both history's lesson and the Bible's warning.  What Metaxas (and Kirk) are calling for, whatever portion of the Church follows, will be fighting against God, not for him.

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me."

Exodus 20:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.

John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

The Dangerous Idolatry of Christian Trumpism We can pray peace will prevail, but we’d be fools to presume it will - by David French {David French points out the danger of Metaxas' words, and broadens it out to other calls for violence/war like the Texas GOP's call for secession.  Like Dreher, French is more overtly political in his commentary than I choose to be, but the warning of the danger of the path chosen by many American Christians is accurate.} 

Some Christians express concerns over ‘bizarre’ pro-Trump Jericho March Some Christians express concerns over ‘bizarre’ pro-Trump Jericho March By Jackson Elliott, Christian Post {Another related article, this one quotes Metaxas as introducing 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as his 'good friend'.  If that isn't evidence that Metaxas has gone far too far down this rabbit hole, I'm not sure what else you need.}

Eric Metaxas, Christian radio host, tells Trump, ‘Jesus is with us in this fight’ - Religion News Service {A further example of blasphemy/taking the name of the Lord in vain, by declaring that Jesus is on 'our side' in an election...The article contains a link to a story from the summer when Metaxas punched a protestor riding by on a bike in the face (Metaxas was not detained or charged for the assault, even though the protestor was detained then released).}

Sermon Video: His own did not receive him - John 1:6-11

 Following his soaring introductory paragraph, John speaks of the precursor of the Light of Mankind, John the Baptist, and his work to prepare his people for the coming of the Messiah. Then John tackles a difficult issue, while Jesus is the True Light, the very Son of God, his own people (for the most part) rejected him. Not only that, a majority of humanity has never accepted Jesus as the Savior of the world, why is that? It isn't the plan from the Father that is flawed, nor the execution of the plan by the Son, nor the 'tech support' to that plan offered by the Holy Spirit. The flaw resides with the recipients of God's grace. Fallen humanity exists in rebellion against God, with darkened hearts and minds, capable of believing lies and rejecting Truth. 2020 has reminded us of this, with both the pandemic and the election spawning countless false narratives and outright hoaxes, believed by millions. Yet the True Light remains, the Gospel retains its power to transform lives and save souls.

Would Americans accept Martin Luther today, or dismiss him for his 'radical' economic views?

It seems almost axiomatic that had Martin Luther King Jr. not been assassinated in 1968 at the age of 39, but instead lived and crusaded against the racism affecting minorities in America for decades longer, that he would have ended his days not as a beloved figure appreciated by even those who disliked his politics and/or theology, but as a 'radical liberal' dismissed by most white American Christians.  Martyrdom has made Martin Luther King Jr. more acceptable to American than are his contemporaries and those carrying on his legacy on behalf of the poor and mistreated.

I wonder, however, if the same isn't true of Martin Luther as well.  Has 500 years taken the 'edge' off of Martin Luther in similar fashion to what has transpired with Martin Luther King Jr? 

As an example, consider the words written by Martin Luther in a 1524 sermon, "On Trading and Usury":

"Buying and selling are necessary.  They cannot be dispensed with and can be practiced in a Christian manner, especially when the articles of trade serve a necessary and honorable purpose...Even the patriarchs bought and sold cattle, wool, grain, butter, milk and other goods.  These are gifts of God, which He bestows out of the earth and distributes among men.  But foreign trade, which brings from Calcutta, India, and such places, wares like costly silks, gold-work and spices, which minister only to luxury and serve no useful purpose, and which drains away the wealth of land and people - this trade ought not be permitted..."

At first, Luther sounds like a Free Market advocate, extoling the virtue of trade as a profession, but then he speaks of governmental controls on the trade of luxury goods, advocating an outright ban on some of these, and worrying about the affect of trade upon the 'land and people'.  Martin Luther didn't live in a democratic society, nor did he experience a modern economy, so perhaps he would have adapted his views to the times.  That being said, could we really expect Martin Luther to forsake his concern about purposeless luxury and his care for how our economic activity affects the 'land and people'?

Luther continued, "The merchants have among themselves one common rule...They say: I may sell my goods as dear as I can.  This they think their right.  Lo, that is giving place to avarice and opening every door and window to hell.  What does it mean? Only this: 'I care nothing about my neighbor, so long as I have my profit and satisfy my greed, what affair is it of mine if it does my neighbor 10 injuries at once?'  There you see how shamelessly this maxim flies squarely in the face not only of Christian love, but of natural law..."

Once again, the precise nature of Luther's objections wouldn't be exactly the same in a Free Market Economy, but the principle of absolute property rights (I can do whatever I want with what I own) that is championed by many Americans (and others of wealth and power around the world) seems hardly to fit with Luther's reminder that a true Christian cares about how his business practices affect his neighbor.

So, how would Luther respond to the economic injustices that he witnessed?  It is only speculation, but he wouldn't likely put his trust in the 'invisible hand' of the Free Market.  Luther's sermon continued with, "The best and safest way would be for the temporal authorities to appoint over this matter wise and honest men who would appraise the cost of all sorts of wares and fix accordingly the outside price at which the merchant would get his due and have an honest living...the next best thing is to hold our wares at the price which they bring in the common market or which is customary in the neighborhood...But when the price of goods is not fixed either by law or custom, and you must fix it yourself, then indeed no one can give you any other instructions except to lay it upon your conscience to be careful and not overcharge your neighbor, and seek not avaricious gain, but only an honest living."

Would Martin Luther's theology be respected by his theological descendants if they came in the same package as calls for governmental price controls, fair market rates, and above all else, conscience as a limit upon business profits?

To what end this musing?  The question struck me in part because of how fiercely Pope Francis is consistently attacked for his economic views about justice for the poor or care for the environment.  Were Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King Jr. alive today, would they not be treated the same way?

Two forces are at work here, both of which tend toward corruption/abuse: 

1. We smooth the rough edges off of figures of the past, making them more palatable to our ears, and thus their wisdom less cogent.

2. We tend to run theology and ethics through our political and economic lens, and not the other way around.