Twitxy Saved

Lucas Miles

Verified account Turning Point USA

@lucasmiles

VP @tpusa @tpusafaith, NYT Best Selling Author - Pagan Threat, Pastor @Nfluence_Church
South Bend, IN/Phoenix, AZ linkin.bio/lucasmiles Joined April 2009
4.1K Following 16K Followers 13K Posts

Latest posts 5

Pinned post

Lucas Miles Verified account @lucasmiles
TPUSA was and is Charlie Kirk’s baby, a child birthed through sacrifice, vision, sweat, tears, and ultimately his own blood. Today, that child is being dragged into the court of public opinion for a full-on spiritual custody battle with everyone claiming to know what’s best while pulling it in opposite directions.

It’s easy to get swept up in the cultural chaos, but 1 Kings 3 gives us a spiritual lens for moments exactly like this. Two women stood before Solomon, both insisting the child was theirs. One was the true mother. The other a deceiver.
But how could anyone tell the difference?

Only one cried, “Give her the living baby… but don’t kill him!”

The true parent would rather lose the argument than watch the child be cut in half.

The false one only cared about winning, even if the child was destroyed in the process.

So in this moment, for all who truly love Charlie, his mission, and his life’s work, the real question isn’t: Who yells the loudest? Who says they have receipts? Who posts the most? Who claims the moral high ground?

The real question is…

Who wants the child to live?

Who wants the work to continue?

Who is fighting for unity within the conservative movement?

Who cares about the souls of the next generation?

And who did Charlie personally choose and entrust to steward what he built?

Those answers have a way of revealing themselves.

And for those of us still carrying Charlie’s mantle, the mission hasn’t changed, the calling hasn’t dimmed, and by God’s grace, the child will not die on our watch.
402 replies 922 reposts 4.5K likes 258K views View on X
Lucas Miles Verified account @lucasmiles
Classic Vischer. Word games, rage bait, and coy responses drenched in motte-and-bailey reasoning.

The defensible point is easy. Jesus says God is spirit (John 4:24). The fact that the Son took on flesh as a man tells us nothing about the Father having male anatomy. Then comes the insinuation that taking God’s fatherhood seriously elevates masculinity and “demotes femininity.” That’s where the woke framing does its work. It recasts a truth Jesus revealed as a problem for women.

The early church was perfectly capable of making these distinctions. Gregory of Nazianzus explained that “Father” names the Father’s relation to the Son. The Nicene Creed confesses the Son as eternally begotten of the Father. Chalcedon distinguishes that eternal begetting from his birth to Mary in time. All of that follows the logic of Jesus’ own prayer in John 17. The Father loved the Son before the foundation of the world.

And “demotes femininity to something created and human”? Masculinity is created and human too. God made us male and female, called his creation good, and gave both sexes the dignity of bearing his image. Where exactly is the demotion?

“Bad theology creates bad anthropology.” Agreed. So start with the words Christ gave us and the world God actually made. Jesus taught us to pray “Our Father.” Genesis tells us whose image every woman bears. If your politics make those truths sound like rivals, your politics need correcting.
Phil Vischer @philvischer 4h
I'm amazed at the # of Christians who believe, since God took on the human form of a biological male, we can conclude that God the Father is eternally male.

Also amazed at the anger generated by pointing out this is not historic Christian teaching.
View quoted post on X
Lucas Miles Verified account @lucasmiles
This!
Josh Howerton Verified account @howertonjosh Oct 21
A couple things on this, because progressives use this to bully and intimidate (conservative) pastors into silence:

1) While I am very clear about the evil of many policies currently being advanced by the DNC and CLEAR moral asymmetry between the proposed policies of the parties, I do not endorse candidates right now.

2) Progressives selectively report churches to the FFRF every year. You'll never see this article about the (primarily AA) churches Democrats are in every week leading up to an election. It's an attempt at street-level lawfare.

3) Articles like this are toothless and you should just chuckle at them. We have a lawyer that argues Religious Liberty cases before SCOTUS at Lakepointe. No church in US History has ever had their tax exempt status removed for a sermon, much less for one in which a candidate was not even endorsed.

4) In the words of a couple knowledgable guys I consulted with, it's a harassment and intimidation tactic to silence pastors.

Intent of this post isn't to be combative, but I have realized this fear has intimidated some pastor friends and after looking into it, wanted to remove that fear.

BOTTOM LINE: You are 100% free to be clear with your people about the (radical) moral asymmetry between the current proposed policies and ideologies of the parties AND to encourage your people to vote as an application of the command to be “the salt of the earth” and to “seek the welfare of the city” and to “live your neighbor”.
View quoted post on X