Thoughts on Charlie Kirk

Over the past five days since Charlie Kirk was assassinated, on one hand, it has been very encouraging to see the outpouring of support and sympathy for Kirk and the firm condemnation for the assassination itself, as well as those who were applauding it. Celebrities, athletes, the constant stream of posts online, as well as life-long liberals and Democrats—it has been encouraging. On the other hand, the shockingly bloodthirsty and hateful posts by idiots, as well as some pretty petty, hateful, and mean-spirited comments by others in the news media, as well as a few Democrat leaders, has been discouraging to say the least.

I never was a big Charlie Kirk fan. To me, he was just a conservative talking head who had some organization that went on college campuses and signed people up to vote. I agreed with him on some things and not as much on others. But I knew full well scores of “progressives” and “ex-Evangelicals” utterly despised him. I’ve read books and seen posts and video clips of him constantly being called a white supremacist, fascist, Christian nationalist, etc. I’ve also seen the full-length video clips from where those accusations came from only to realize what he was being accused of promoting was not at all what he was saying.

The core issue surrounding Kirk’s assassination is not “Oh both sides engage in horrible rhetoric”—of course they do. Or “Where was the outcry from conservative Christians and Republicans when certain Democrat lawmakers were killed?” –to that, I didn’t see anyone applaud or excuse those instances; they were universally condemned.

And the core issue certainly is not—or should not—be “But Kirk said some pretty hurtful things!” That is completely besides the point.

As a Christian, there is always that question of what a Christian’s relationship to “the world” and specifically to the government should be. From the time of the early Church really up to just a few centuries ago, there wasn’t much a Christian could do. You lived under and emperor or king. Politically-speaking, you had no real “political power.”

But with the founding of the United States and the structuring of our country to be a constitutional republic, things inevitably changed. Now, the people—each citizen of the United States—has a responsibility to be informed about political issues and to put forth his/her opinion in a continuous national discussion and debate. Every two years, congressmen are elected; every six years, senators are elected; and every four years, a president is elected. And that means your vote should be (we can all hope) be a well-informed vote. But to be a well-informed vote, people need to have the courage to put forth those views and discuss and debate them, without fear of reprisal, punishment, or death. That’s why we have our First Amendment. It is the bedrock of our constitutional republic.

Now, that responsibility is upon every citizen of the United States. Everyone has the right to argue for his/her own views based on his/her own convictions, be they philosophical, religious, or anything.

So, to come back to the question of how Christians relate to “the world” and to the government, that’s basically it. Christians, just like anyone else, have a constitutional right and a civil responsibility to argue for their views on issues and to make their case for how they want the government to be run. If Christians refuse to have any say in politics, I would argue they are not being good Christians, because here in the United States, it is enshrined in our Constitution that the people have the right and responsibility to have a say in the government. Christians would not be responsible citizens if they didn’t take part in the democratic process of our constitutional republic. And if they are not responsible citizens, they are not being good Christians, because Christians are called to be good citizens in whatever country they live.

Still, it’s a tricky business because politics can easily evolve into one’s “political religion.” Nevertheless, it’s a good thing, albeit a challenge, for Christians to be involved in the political and civil life of our country—and that means sharing their views and making the best arguments they can as to why their views are right. Yes, debates will get messy. Ask anyone who has ever gotten roped into a political or social debate online if they’ve ever regretted saying something every now and then, and if they’re not lying, the answer will be 100% in the affirmative, every single time.

And that brings me back to Charlie Kirk. I don’t care if you agreed or disagreed with his views. Like I said, I agreed on some things and had a different opinion on others. It seems to me that all he was doing was his civic duty as a citizen of the United States. He was an unabashed Christian who was deeply involved doing something that the Constitution enjoins every citizen to do: get involved in the public debate and make an argument for your views. You can disagree with him on issues, but the moment you say something like, “Oh, I deplore political violence, BUT…he said some things that hurt people,” or hurl the standard “Nazi, fascist, white supremacist, Christian nationalist” epitaphs at him, I humbly ask you, especially if you call yourself a Christian, to step back and think about that.

From what I can tell, most of his views on a variety of issues—views that some constantly label “right wing extremist” now—were standard, mainstream views for both Republicans and Democrats only twenty years ago. Why, I saw a video just today of some lady on a talk show call a guy on the panel a “right-wing extremist” based on the following things: (1) he was wearing an American flag t-shirt, (2) be believed there were two genders, and (3) he didn’t constantly wear a mask during Covid. I’m sorry, that’s not “right-wing extremist.” And over the years, the constant litany of “Nazi,” “white supremacist,” “fascist,” “Christian nationalist” seems to be leveled at ANYBODY who is conservative, and especially at conservative Evangelicals. There is something deeply wrong about that.

And specifically, the overuse of “Christian nationalist” is particularly disturbing. Let me be clear, there is a HUGE difference between an ACTUAL CHRISTIAN NATIONALIST who wants to forcibly “make the United States a ‘Christian nation’” through direct government laws that impose it on the populace (that’s bad!), and someone like Charlie Kirk (and millions of other Christians) who simply believed that the Christian worldview provides a stable foundation for a fair and just society for all people, and then went out into the public square to make his case through discussion and debate—basically, trying to be a responsible citizen of the United States and winning people over to his side by convincing them through argument. Whether or not you agree with his views is irrelevant—what he was doing was good. It is what we are called to do as responsible citizens.

That, I suggest, is the core issue of everything that has happened over these past five days. Whether you agreed with Charlie Kirk or not, the fact is that he was assassinated because he was unapologetically a Christian and he was committed to debating political and social issues. Progressives called him a “fascist” because he had a different position on a number of their “sacred cow” issues. Ex-Evangelicals called him a “Christian nationalist” because he was an Evangelical conservative who supported Trump and highlighted the Christian heritage of the United States and argued for “traditional values.”

I’m sorry, he wasn’t a “fascist,” and he wasn’t a “Christian nationalist.” He was a conservative Evangelical Christian who felt it was his calling to get involved in politics and make his case for what he’d like to see in America. He was being a good citizen and trying to have a say in how the government is run through the means by which the Constitution lays out—debate and discourse. Whether or not you agree with him on the issues is utterly beside the point. If you do disagree, do your Constitutional duty and make a coherent argument and try to sway people that you’re right. Don’t name-call, don’t demonize, don’t whip people up with purposely inflammatory labels.

I’ve been on the receiving end of what I call “ultra-Fundamentalist” attacks that labeled me as a “liberal” because I didn’t agree with Ken Ham on certain issues. I know what it is like to try to discuss and debate and instead get attacked. I didn’t lose my life, but I did lose my career in Christian schools. When I wrote The Heresy of Ham, that was the one of the things I emphasized was wrong in some segments of today’s Evangelicalism. At the same time, I emphasized over and over again that I thought most Evangelicals were good and, in fact, not like Ken Ham. I went out of my way to make that distinction because I certainly didn’t appreciate it when I suffered those broadbrushed, stereotyped attacks against me.

Consequently, I’m very sensitive to when I see it being done to Evangelical Christians (even though I’m not even one anymore!) by more liberal Christians, or “Ex-Evangelicals.”  When I see that being done, I see the same thing that happened to me, just from the opposite side of the political spectrum. One’s political side isn’t the issue—the issue is whether or not you are trying to engage in honest, constructive discourse, where you can disagree with someone but still respect them, or whether or not you are just looking to pick a fight and destroy the other person.

In debates, sometimes harsh words are said, and the rhetoric can get heated. But when it gets to the point where one side refuses to actually engage, but instead only hurls insults and verbal smears, that is where things get really hurtful and nasty. And no, I’m not talking about, “Oh, he hurt my feelings.” I’m talking about losing your job, or your life.

So, as a Christian, I guess those are my thoughts on Charlie Kirk and what the real issue seems to be. Fortunately, over the past five days, I’ve seen a lot more positive responses from people from all walks of life, and from the more mature, responsible political leaders in both parties. I think, I hope, Kirk’s death will galvanize a larger movement for us to be more civil, and yes more Christian in the way we act…maybe. But ultimately, that is up to “we the people.” My advice is simple: be open to engage and discuss with people who clearly are open to actually engage and discuss; but walk away from those who are always angry, always toxic, and always looking to fight. Such people actually are in the minority, and they will eventually wither on the vine if you refuse to feed them.