The cruelty against Charlie Kirk has been staggering

Like so many of you, I am still trying to process the horrific reality of Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University on September 10. Words escape me as I wrestle with both the loss of a generational voice and the seeming death of our cultural conscience. Only time will tell if this tragedy is the beginning of America’s needed renewal or its impending ruin.

While I recognize that political violence stems from both the right and left, the tragedy surrounding Charlie Kirk is almost as predictable as it is painful. We should welcome calls to “turn down the rhetoric,” but doing so without recognizing the patterns that preceded this tragedy is futile.

For years, opponents who disagreed with Kirk repeatedly labeled him as part of the dreaded fringe, a right-wing activist who was divisive, extreme, and incendiary. Fearing his persuasive arguments, many on the left painted Charlie as a xenophobic and homophobic white supremacist unworthy of debate. In other words, they hurled ad hominem insults because they could not counter his ideas.

Think I am overstating it? The sheer glee of some online is the very definition of bigotry. The number of videos with individuals laughing hysterically, shouting enthusiastically, and clapping uncontrollably in celebration is breathtaking. Insensitive one-liners and obnoxious memes littered the feeds of most users on every social media platform. And why? Because a loving husband and father of two is somehow less than human simply because he saw the world differently than his critics. God help us.

The breadth of the cruelty has been staggering. The conversation turned so vile that teachers, college professors, authors, firefighters, journalists, healthcare workers, pilots and Secret Service members necessarily lost their jobs for their calloused, disrespectful remarks. Then, just as predictably, these same mockers are now playing the martyr card in defense of their hateful behavior. Imagine, after grotesquely suggesting that a 31-year-old family man in his prime deserved an assassin’s bullet simply for exercising his First Amendment right, emotionally pleading your victimhood because you lost your job for speaking freely. The disconnect is remarkable.

Though laws vary slightly from state to state, generally, employers have every right to terminate employees due to online or social media comments deemed inappropriate. While the First Amendment guarantees our freedom to say what we want, when we want, where we want, it does not prevent businesses from parting ways with workers who violate “company values” (a phrase repeated a lot recently). Conduct seen as damaging to the reputation or profitability of a corporation is grounds for dismissal according to the law. Rightly so.

Among the most visible offenders was Matthew Dowd, a political analyst at MSNBC who had the gall to imply that Kirk deserved to die because he was so divisive. “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words,” he contended, “which then lead to hateful actions.” As an aside, if your rhetoric is too extreme for MSNBC, you really need to tone it down. But what exactly was so malicious about Kirk’s going to college campuses and listening to skeptics and critics alike in order to engage in debate and dialogue?

Herein, we stumble upon the great offense of Charlie Kirk. He dared to speak the truth. And not just greeting card pleasantries. His audacity to share openly biblical positions on gender, marriage, homosexuality, abortion, the role of government, judicial activism, etc., quickly drew the ire of critics anxious to label him a Christian nationalist.

Unfortunately, we live in a generation that not only resists the truth but also sees it as hateful and cruel. With pinpoint accuracy, Scripture anticipated our current climate. “For the time will come,” wrote the Apostle Paul, “when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

Though I did not agree with every position Charlie Kirk took, his consistent effort to demonstrate the veracity of Scripture in everyday life was inspiring. Far too many Christians hide their faith in public spaces, fearing the backlash of political correctness and secular priorities. Even after his death, the name-calling is wickedly cringeworthy.

Likewise, if you dare to hold and voice a biblical worldview that informs your politics, many will just as rapidly label you a threat to democracy, a domestic terrorist, or even worse, a fascist. The names change, but the playbook remains the same. How do I know? Because Charlie Kirk is not the first Christian to die for boldly proclaiming what God’s Word says.

Both the apostles Paul and Peter also lost their lives for telling the truth. If each were alive today, many of the same dissenters would anxiously mark them as political extremists on the far-right fringe for addressing many of the same issues Charlie Kirk spoke so passionately about.

For instance, both apostles promoted a limited government that exists primarily for the punishment of evildoers (Rom. 13:1-6, 1 Peter 2:13-14). While appearing before the Sanhedrin, Paul admonished that the council judges rule according to settled, external law outside of themselves (Acts 23:3). Judicial activism of any kind runs contrary to the established standards of written legalities.

Notions of government handouts or wealth redistribution were also foreign to Paul and Peter. Though they advocated for helping the poor (Gal. 2:10), they also insisted that those who refuse to work should not eat because rewarding laziness is foolish (2 Thess. 3:10-11). Being sensitive to real needs was hardly an endorsement of equity outcomes for all.

Regarding race, what fundamentally mattered to these leaders of the early church was not the color of a person’s skin but their identity in Christ (Gal. 3:28). For them, creating winners and losers, victims and oppressors, contradicted the unity found in the family of God. Paul sought to preach the Gospel to all people without discrimination (Rom. 1:14-16). The Apostle Peter likewise maintained that what makes us distinct is not our skin color but who we are in Christ Jesus (1 Peter 2:10). Fellowship came across socioeconomic and cultural lines, not through obliterating them. In other words, the Gospel is more powerful than what the world says should divide us.

When speaking about gender and marriage, Paul and Peter acknowledged that only a man and woman can become one flesh through holy matrimony and that both, as a picture of the gospel, have unique assignments in the home (Eph. 5:22-31; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7). Echoing the words of Jesus, Paul taught that divorce was never permissible except for reasons of adultery and desertion (Matt. 5:31-32; Matt. 19:1-12; 1 Cor. 7:10-16).

Additionally, Paul declared homosexuality in all its forms to be unnatural and idolatrous (Rom. 1:26-27), incompatible with sound teaching and Christianity itself (1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-10). Peter grimaced over the prospect of such reckless sensuality and the consequences it is sure to bring (1 Peter 2:4-11). According to both men, the freedom promised by the sexual revolution is a deceptive fabrication that only leads to bondage and shame (1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Peter 2:18-9).

When it was all over, Paul lost his head and Peter suffered upside down on a cross for their views. The world was not worthy of these early martyrs for the faith, nor the thousands who have come after them (Heb. 11:35-38). Outcomes like these should not surprise us, though. Jesus Himself contended that the world would insult, persecute, and say every kind of evil against His people (Matt. 5:10-12).

But how was He so sure? Because the light of creation experienced the same rejection and hate when He came into the world (John 1:9-10). He, too, spoke boldly about two genders (Matt. 19:4), the permanence of marriage (Matt. 5:31-31; 19:1-12), the reality of Hell (Matt. 7:21-23, 8:12, 18:9; Mark 9:43-48), and loving our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48). Perhaps most offensive of all, He claimed to be the promised Messiah who is the only way to God (John 14:6).

Disagreement is part of life. Robust debate and engagement, though, are not threats worthy of violence. Quite the contrary, contending with others is an expression of their value as God’s image bearers (Gen. 1:26). Denouncing bad ideas is not an act of hatred, but an effort to promote human flourishing for those with whom we disagree.

So, even as some voices continue to suggest that Charlie Kirk was a stain on our society, let’s do better. In fact, I encourage you to listen and decide for yourselves. His videos are everywhere. Judge for yourself if you believe he was unkind or harsh. Refuse to listen to partisan voices desperate to spike the ball in this historical moment.