Longer Reflections on Charlie Kirk’s Death

Welp. From my last post where I was ISO Charlie Kirk video where he makes racist remarks, slurs, or the like, I have been combing through all the links people shared and mulling over the thoughts people shared of their own on the issue. As my friend Andres said, it’s “muy complicado”. Because it is. My friend Ben wanted to hear my thoughts and I wanted to sit and think and consider what was shared.

As always, I am happy to engage on any of these thoughts. For the sake of clarity, I am bringing them up with numbers (so you can reference if you’d like for further dialogue!). Feel free to email me and we can talk further!

1. I am grateful that Charlie Kirk sought to go into a difficult space and encourage dialogue. I remember my time at the University of Louisville would have been a very volatile place…and I witnessed such volatility when anyone would come and try to share something that smacked of religion or conservatism. 
2. I am grateful that he clearly told people that Jesus came to forgive people of their sin. I am grateful that he identified as a sinner in need of a Savior. I am grateful that he was kind toward many people and exhibited patience when responding to people who resorted to mere name calling, rather than engaging with the issues he presented. 
3. I am surprised at how well he composed himself while being called all sorts of names. I am surprised he didn’t succumb to the temptation more than he did to match ire with ire. I get flustered when someone misrepresents me or calls me names pretty quickly. 
4. I do find some of his argumentation troubling and people need to reckon with its rhetoric. I would encourage you to watch: this and this . I would also encourage you to read this reflection by Jamaal Williams.
5. I am thankful for Thaddeus’ well-researched video I posted in the comments section of my previous post and would encourage you to watch it. 
6. I am grateful that this issue has raised questions of utmost importance, rather than simply sharing memes. Sure there is too much pejorative and hateful speech…but I am grateful to the folks who engaged in my initial post and pray that we can actually have debate on ideas and not resort to name calling, which simply shuts down any ability to seek to understand.
7. I am grateful for the witness Marco Rubio gave and the multiple politicians who were present and listened and affirmed the Gospel of Good News for all people! Do I want to go back to where people tiptoed around talking about and to God? Not in the least. I don’t want to go back to where people were cancelled for saying something the media or administration didn’t like. But I also shuddered from the wedding of nationalism into the rhetoric of Kirk’s memorial (i.e., proclamations of never surrendering and what-not). To the non-discerning listener, it can be very easy to think that the message is Americans = Christians…which is not the case!
8. The question at hand is the relationship of faith and action. Politics and Religion. There is no doubt that one’s faith can and must inform their public policy. This is something that Kirk was unabashed in connecting. There can be no separation between what you believe and what you do. To believe otherwise is to lack self-awareness and how faith works itself out in the public sphere—whether it be who you vote or what non-profit you give your money to (or don’t). What is clearer now more than ever is…
9. Jesus Christ is Lord over all nations. He came that we might have life and have it abundantly. He came to forgive us for our rebellion and self-centeredness. He came to live that abundant life we were intended to live from the Garden of Eden—enjoying God’s Creation…keeping and tending and stewarding its beauty. As a result, he was killed when he spoke against the powers and principalities and powers of his day. His sacrifice was the payment for our debt we owe for our being self-concerned to the detriment of our neighbor. His perfect righteousness is credited to us so that we can fellowship with God and become what he created us to be through submission and conformity to the Holy Spirit’s indwelling and work in renovating our souls. 
10. The previous is the linchpin and THE issue. In what way, then, do we seek to submit our public domain to Christ’s domain. 
11. The United States has never been a “Christian nation”. There is no doubt that many of the founding fathers were Christians or God-fearers. There is no doubt that Pilgrims sought to flee persecution from England, where it was a “Christian nation”. They sought freedom to worship as they wished. And we have Roger Williams’ crew in Providence to thank for genuinely believing and helping carve the path to allow people freedom from political coercion. The concept of separation of church and state is not that church never informs state. Rather, it protects the Church from the State. Yet, the Church has to work hard to understand what it means to legislate according to Natural Law and not legislate things that non-Christians are not expected to live by—church attendance, prayer, 
12. Much of the confusion stems from the inability to distinguish between Natural Law and Revelation. There are things that are self-evident (i.e., Natural Law) that ennoble us to pass Law that is understood by all and can submit to their direction. This would be things like opposing murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. We have to work harder to delineate between the two. We ought not to expect those who aren’t Christians to act like Christians…and we ought not to be alright with Christians using Power over others like those who don’t know God. 
13. I want the laws of our country to reflect the general tenor of God’s Revelation and Natural law as much as possible. This is why I am anti-abortion and I don’t support laws that enable a man claiming he’s a woman impinging on my daughter’s ability to compete (because it infringes on their rights…in both scenarios).
14. I think much of the issue revolves around what Martin Luther called the human tendency toward a Theology of Glory, to the sacrifice of the Theology of the Cross. I have scene too much triumphalism from Christians. A denigration of others and their ideas. This is not the way of Jesus. He welcomed people—from prostitutes and tax collectors to commending a centurion’s faith! I cannot imagine him calling people the names that are typical in our dumbed down discourse. Yes. Jesus called the religious leaders “white washed tombs” and “sons of the devil”. They knew better…or at least they should have! You don’t see this kind of discourse with unbelievers. The closest thing is where he implies that a Samaritan woman is a dog…(not the point to exegete this complicated passage…just to mention the breadth of his use of such language) because she should have also known better because the Samaritans read and listened to Moses’ teachings. And she did, as her faith would be commended. Those who had power were not won over by power. 
15. This, unfortunately, is the issue I have with so much of the rhetoric coming from groups like Turning Point as well as Trump always folks. They opt for power plays and talking over and characterizing the other side. 
16. This can be seen from those who were calling for people to leave churches if they didn’t mention Charlie Kirk. This is ridiculous. Leave it up to a matter of conscience to the pastors who care for the people in their churches. I have a hard time aligning myself with anything that Mark Driscoll champions. And the kind of baptizing of conservatism in the language of being the only way is a serious problem. People are consuming it because they have merely adopted the world’s lording over others (i.e., theology of glory), rather than engaging ideas and seeing all people made in the image of God. [NOTE: there are many videos that show Kirk displaying kindness and compassion and concern and love for those who disagreed with him. This should not be drowned out by either side…those who want bombastic language and those who want to call him a hate-mongerer]. 
17. I think much of the discourse seemed to get ugly when Kirk was in his studio (i.e., echo chamber) with pundits like Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, and Ben Shapiro). There begins to be a haphazard way of referencing the other side. This is why my brother Sean’s comment (my actual, biological brother, not an affectionate term of endearment) is apropos. We have to talk to actual people and not shut down others because they disagree. We know this…but because we lack courage and finding our identity outside of our politics, we have a really hard time practicing it. It is not courageous to sit around with your buddies and talk about how dumb the other side is. This happens on both sides. This is why shouting across does little to change minds or hearts. This is why Doug Wilson is willing to justify unwholesome speech about others. He, and those who follow his method, fail to listen…opting to roll their eyes and nuance and explain it away rather than considering how they repulse those who don’t know God. This would be the case with anyone whose posture who dubs what they do as courageous, instead of compassionate. True courage starts with being vulnerable—to borrow from Brene Brown. It’s not courageous to label the differing opinion as stupid or vile, without first listening to them. 
18. I knew there was a problem when Tim Keller’s third-wayism was being critiqued. A friend of mine just posted a video where this idea is straw manned and critiqued. The third way isn’t a license to not have a moral compass. To say that all ways are equally valid. It doesn’t, as one of the critics said, give Christians a pass on having moral stances. I can be unashamedly pro-life without yelling at people and calling them names. I have stood outside the abortion clinic locally and spoken with people civilly to not pursue abortion while being yelled at by folks who wanted to get us to leave. The third way does enable us to say there are positive emphases on the left, with its vocalization of social justice. And, of course, criticize it that this push has gone too far. The third way also enables us to celebrate the need to life affirming, while also critiquing some of the overlooking of how to care for those who do choose to affirm life and keep their babies. I am grateful for the myriad of ministries that seek to support ladies who choose life…and I think if it’s going to be a public policy, then there need to be public support for those who choose life. Further though, the Church needs to be proactively being the ones who practice pure and undefiled religion, by caring for the poor and the outcast and widow.
19. To say the above does not excuse or explain away the vitriol of many who celebrated or mocked Kirk’s death. That is repulsive and gross and goes against Natural Law by celebrating death and not affirming life. I have had my share of experiences with people who call me a bigot or misogynist because they disagree with me. And the problem with much of the discourse is that when we disagree with a stance, we resort to name calling rather than reasoning. So how do we go forward?
20. If we want a way forward, it will take a recommitment to our identity being grounded in our Belovedness by God. It will require us to really be surprised by and overwhelmed by grace. It will require the Church to work hard to listen and kindly and gently make their cases for why we believe the way we do. The problem with Christian Nationalism is that it finds its identity in Jesus plus something else, which is a false gospel. There has to be a reclaiming of our identity as supra-political…looking to Jesus for wisdom that is, to quote his half-brother James, “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere” (James 3.17). When we rest in the Love of God and truly let him sing over us, then we are less prone to fighting and more prone to forgiving. We debate and reason. We argue, but we aren’t argumentative.