Thoughts on the Death of Charlie Kirk
When this blog gets posted, it will be a full 10 days since Charlie Kirk was assassinated, which means some of you might be tired of hearing about it, but the online discussion seems to continue and expand as the implications of the horrific assassination reverberate worldwide. I touched on the matter in my sermon on Sept. 14, but there is so much more to say that I wanted to take this opportunity to share some thoughts for your consideration as we all continue to process what happened on Sept. 10 on the campus of Utah Valley University.
As appalling as the shooting was, it is almost equally appalling to consider the reaction expressed by some of Charlie Kirk’s detractors. People have gleefully celebrated and mocked Kirk’s death; many throughout the nation have been fired from their jobs for going public with inappropriate and distasteful remarks (including one employee at Ball State); and commentators such as Matthew Dowd from MSNBC implied that it was Kirk’s own fault for getting killed, because “hateful words” lead to “hateful actions” (thankfully, Dowd later apologized for his remarks).
This basic posture, the idea that certain viewpoints and kinds of speech are intolerable, was captured in a recently publicized text exchange between Kirk’s accused killer, Tyler Robinson, and Robinson’s trans live-in boyfriend. In one text, as Robinson was explaining why he chose to kill Kirk, he wrote, “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” If I’m understanding him correctly, he seems to be saying that there are some forms of expression which can’t be discussed and therefore must be silenced. If some words are considered an act of violence because of the negative effect they have on others, then, at least in Robinson’s mind, violence apparently can be justified to silence those words. It’s the dangerous implication of a dangerous ideology.
Kirk rose to fame by going to college campuses to “negotiate” with students on hot button issues like abortion, gun control, homosexuality and transgenderism. Some people object to this approach, claiming that Kirk was asking for trouble by stirring the pot and looking for controversy. To this I would point out, first, that no student was required to attend any of Kirk’s events, and those who did attend were free to leave whenever they wanted; secondly, in the videos I have seen, Kirk was always patient and reasonable in his interactions (as Joe Rogan even acknowledged in a recent podcast with Charlie Sheen), and seemed sincere in his desire to simply have an open exchange of ideas with others; and third, we should remember that it was a regular practice of the Apostle Paul to enter Jewish synagogues for the express purpose of “reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God” (Acts 19:8; see also 18:4). And, of course, Paul’s opponents tried to kill him too (Acts 14:19).
To be clear, I was not an avid follower of Kirk, and I’m not even saying I agree with everything he said, or with the specific way he articulated his points. But it’s hard not to conclude that Kirk was killed not for the manner of his speech, but for the content of his speech. He defended the rights of the unborn. He challenged the assumptions of the transgender cult. He argued persuasively for the truth of the Christian Gospel. The troubling conclusion of the matter is that we seem to live in a society where certain truth claims, many of which are firmly rooted in Biblical revelation, are opposed so vehemently that it seems justified to kill a man for saying them.
As the British writer G.K. Chesterton is quoted as saying: “We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which furious party cries will be raised against anybody who says that cows have horns, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.”
But let me shift gears to make a different point. It has been astounding and inspiring to witness the global support for Kirk in the aftermath of his death. In places as far away as South Korea, people marched in the streets, holding signs that read, “Rest in Peace, Charlie Kirk.” Reports are indicating that many people are returning to church, seeking the Lord because of how troubled they were about Kirk’s assassination. Could it be that Tyler Robinson’s mission has backfired, and rather than silencing Kirk’s views, he has instead unleashed thousands more Charlie Kirks who are perhaps even more energized than Charlie himself?
Maybe. This could be a perfect example of how God has used for good what evil people intended for harm (Gen. 50:20). But let me encourage us here to not make a mistake. The church perpetually seems to be tempted to move out of its lane, to find something important and then make that thing the center of its vision and mission, so that the Gospel gets nudged aside, at least a little bit. This is precisely what the progressive woke church has done with social justice issues. My word of caution is to make sure we don’t do the same thing with Charlie Kirk.
For example, a big question circulating online after Sept. 14, the Sunday after Kirk’s death, was whether your pastor talked about Charlie Kirk during the service. Some were suggesting that if the pastor ignored the subject, that you should leave the church. But that would be a very bad reason for leaving the church. The church has no obligation to talk about Charlie Kirk, or George Floyd, or Martin Luther King, or any other political or cultural figure. The only person the church is responsible to proclaim and commend to its listeners in a Sunday morning service is Jesus. So, if your church didn’t talk about Jesus last week, that might be a good reason for leaving. But give it a pass if Charlie wasn’t mentioned. Charlie died for a good cause, but he didn’t die for your and my sins. And having heard his articulation of the Gospel, I think Charlie Kirk -- who apparently made it a priority to be in church every Sunday, no matter where he happened to be in his travels -- would entirely agree.
The views expressed in this blog belong to Pastor Bob and do not necessarily reflect the views of New Life Presbyterian church or the Presbyterian Church in America.
