Recently, a Reformed Baptist Christian in Singapore, Vincent Chia, was handed information on the supposed presentation of a Reformed church in Singapore on the topic of Charlie Kirk. The supposed criticisms by that church can be seen below:
Chia has responded to those criticisms on his Facebook post (which may or may not be private).
On the specific topics of these four criticisms, I agree largely with Chia's criticisms. The leaders of this Reformed church are engaging in misinformation or lying, otherwise known as breaking the ninth commandment. They sinned publicly, and thus the right thing to do is to confess their sin publicly. But years of experience has told me that the chances of that happening is next to zero, but I am willing to be proven wrong anytime.
Like Chia, I have no impressions of Charlie Kirk before his assassination by a far-left lunatic. Certainly, I saw promotions of Kirk and TPUSA (Turning Point USA), but I did not intentionally watch any of them before. I do not also feel the need to defend Kirk from any and every criticism. For example, on the topic of "Christian Nationalism," my position is that he can be called a "Christian Nationalist," depending on the definition of that nebulous term. If "Christian Nationalism" is defined as someone who seeks to push for positions derived from one's Christian faith on a nation, then every self-professed Christian leftist, like Jemar Tisby, is a "Christian Nationalist" as well, so that kind of definition is self-defeating. Kirk is obviously a Christian, and obviously a Nationalist of some sort, but to tar him as a "Christian Nationalist," knowing full well the negative connotations associated with that term, is to malign a Christian brother.
The Church is not to engage in politics, because Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. But that statement is a double-edged sword. It is ridiculous to claim that the church is not to engage in right-wing politics, but then you yourself engage in left-wing politics! If it is wrong to promote Charlie Kirk in church, it is equally wrong to attack him in the church; in fact, it is worse since promotion of Kirk is based on truth while the critique (at least the one here) is based on lies.
This applies especially to churches in Singapore. Last I know, Singapore is not in America, and not near America. Why is there a need for a Reformed church in Singapore to address this particular social issue in America in such detail, and then to lie about a dead Christian? Did this particular church address the issue of S377A in years past and push for its preservation against the perverted lobby? Did they teach against woke-ism, especially after it made landfall in Singapore? If they do not, then their slander of Kirk is even more egregious. If nothing is said about the promotion of rank perversity in Singapore, or destructive social ideologies in Singapore, then their attack on Kirk, who was trying to do what is right in living out what he sees as the truths of Scripture, is blatant left-wing activism!
All this being said, this is not to say that Kirk is faultless and nobody can criticize him. I have heard rumours that he downplays the error of Mormonism. Where Kirk is wrong, by all means criticize him, but criticize only what he actually said and did, not the lies the mainstream media paints of him (and that includes the Straits Times, which I do not trust at all). Any claim that Kirk was a "white nationalist," or "far right," should automatically disquality the person offering such a critique as someone who just mindlessly mouths whatever propaganda the far-left comes out with at best, or a malicious and wicked person at worst.
No comments:
Post a Comment