On Wednesday, US politically conservative and influential Charlie Kirk became the global leader story after his death, a tragic casualty of the shooting, while engaging in public debates with students on university campus.
Two useful theme reflections.
I’ve never read or heard of Charlie Kirk. I just learned most of what I know about him yesterday. So I’m not ready to write an obituary. I limit myself to the reflections of two themes that may be beneficial in this tragedy.
The initial reflection is captured by the essay title of liberal New York Times columnist Ezra Klein. “Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way,” Kirk was colorful and provocative. Some people found his view disgusting. But he didn’t hesitate to engage with his ideological enemies, even on the unfriendly lawns on a liberal university campus. He entered the battle using words rather than guns, but he did not attempt to silence or threaten anyone.
Free speech is not possible when message acceptability is subjectively defined by reader responses.
Liberal universities are not necessarily honored in that regard, and often seek to silence or disrespect. When my son was studying at such a university, he learned about the 2008 incident. In the case, the school severely punished two students in order to publish satires of feminist diaries on campus. The school’s explanation was that if someone felt threatened by the message, the message would not be accepted. However, freedom of speech is not possible when message acceptability is subjectively defined by reader responses.
On another episode 15 years later, on the same campus, students turned their chairs and turned from the opening speakers of the graduation ceremony. And that was just minutes after the university president “congratulated the class on its collective affinity for open mind and critical thinking.”
Sadly, this so-called “cancellation culture” is now widespread among conservatives. Last month, the US Air Force Academy cancelled a scheduled lecture by a professor at another university after discovering it had criticized President Trump on social media.
Charlie Kirk welcomed California governor and well-known liberal politician Gavin Newsom on his podcast six months ago, so California governor and well-known liberal politician Gavin Newsom exemplified the spirit of debate very well.
And may we embrace and embody that spirit.
Also, may we embrace and embody the elegance and whimsical spirit of debate on politics, Christian faith, or other topics that are so important that they are worth discussing.
Provide a second reflex more carefully. Conservatives and liberals accuse each other of creating an environment that contributes to political violence. You need to be very careful about making causal effects connections. But I believe that if we justify violence as a way to solve the problem, then it should not be surprising if others rely on it either.
On September 2nd, US troops attacked boats in the Caribbean. The boat was located in international waters and not near the US. Eleven people reportedly died. The US government claims the victim is a drug trafficker associated with a Venezuelan gang called Tren de Aragua.
Usually, in such circumstances, the army may use non-lethal weapons to negate the boat before intercepting it to board. They will not use deadly weapons unless they are attacked. To my knowledge, no expert other than the US government considers attacks appropriate or legal.
Why did the US do this? Because they can.
A week later, someone climbed onto the roof of a building and killed Charlie Kirk. why? Because he was able to do it.
“What a sleazy and thoughtless feeling to praise someone for killing without trial.”
The US military killed many people in war and secret actions, but aggression is rarely so obvious. As one senator from the president’s own party said of the September 2 attack in the Caribbean, “What a sleazy and thoughtless feeling to praise someone for killing without a trial.”
I need to deal with one possible objection easily. Someone might say that the people of the Bible have inflicted violence on their enemies, even outside of war. Elijah will kill the false prophet. But Elijah lived in a theocratic politics of God, which Baal’s prophet was intentionally covered. There is no Christian theocracy today.
May our mourning against such violence inform our mission and public witnesses.
It was originally featured in Bruce Baron’s “Kindly and Provocative Thoughts.” It was reissued with permission.
Bruce Baron has a variety of careers, including charismatic movements, Dominion theology, political campaigns and research into American public policy. From 2015-2024, he volunteered to the World Evangelical Alliance as a Communications Advisor and from 2018-2024 he was the executive editor of WEA’s Theological Journal. Among other activities, he directs the editorial services of the Association of Christian Scholars. Bruce writes the regular Subsurcack blog. This can be subscribed at https://brucebarron.substack.com.
