Conservative political activist, Charlie Kirk, was assassinated on Wednesday, September 10. At just 31 years old, he was a leader in the conservative movement among the younger generation. Kirk was invited by university social groups to come to their campuses and participate in ad-lib debates with people about moral and social issues. Thousands came to observe and to debate him. It resulted in a huge national following for those who agreed with him and disdain among those who disagreed. Kirk impacted college campuses across the country like no one I can remember.
Charlie Kirk professed to be a devoted follower of Christ. He and his wife and two young children were faithful members of their church. His pastor has been outspoken about Kirk’s spiritual walk behind the scenes. I have read enough to believe Kirk is my Christian brother.
I don’t know all his views and whether I would agree or disagree with some. On his podcast and social media posts, he made some statements that were offensive to black Americans that were just wrong. I am offended by the statements he made and wonder why he felt a need to say them. I wonder, as do most people in his career path, if sometimes he said provocative things to “stir the pot.” That is not meant to be an excuse but a reality. I wish this part of his legacy were different. It alienated so many for no good reason.
What he was most known for was the environment of public debate he created on college campuses. When asked why he initiated that public debate model he said:
“When people stop talking bad things happen. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When cultures stop talking, civil wars ensue. When you stop having human discourse with people you disagree with it becomes easier to commit violence against that group. What we as a culture have to do is get back to having a reasonable conversation where violence is not an option. All I am trying to do is have a respectful civil discourse with others about important issues we face as a culture.”
- Charlie Kirk
Because of those university events, Kirk became a national figure, interviewed by almost every major network, podcast, and political group. In every environment, the interview was designed to debate him on one or more of today's social, moral, or political issues. He more than held his own. Each event led to more invitations with the hope that the next one would be able to stump him publicly, but to no avail. As his popularity grew, many were calling him a “generational talent.”
I personally listened to a few of his debates by video. I heard him address the hard topics of abortion, transgender issues, crime, and others. I never heard him be disrespectful, hateful, or belligerent toward those he debated. In all the debates I heard, he was always calm, logical, and respectful. He always expressed appreciation toward the person he debated.
What made Charlie Kirk so popular was that he was able to effectively challenge what I consider extremist views in the typical American university environment with logic, research and persuasion. He challenged those he debated to rethink their views. I know of no one as capable as Charlie Kirk. He caused those without a voice to be drawn to him and those whose ideology he attacked to distain him.
It was in that environment on Wednesday that a shooter killed Kirk in front of his wife and children.
I believe Charlie Kirk was assassinated because he was effective. He could challenge the status quo ideology and expose its weaknesses. So, when verbal opposition couldn’t stop him, killing him became the only way the assassin could shut him up.
There has been outrage and sorrow over his murder. Personally, I am stunned and deeply wounded by it. At the same time, there have been celebrations by those who disagreed with him. Not everyone. Some who didn’t agree with his views have expressed how wrong this was. Social media channels, however, are filled with videos of people laughing, cheering, and mocking his death. I heard one commentator on a major network say he deserved to die. That commentator was immediately fired by that company, for which I am grateful.
Is this who we are now? Instead of public debate and respectful conversations with each other, hate rules with threats, shootings, and assassinations?
I came across a statement by Stephen A. Smith about Charlie Kirk that I thought was well done. As a disclaimer, he says a few choice words I wish he wouldn’t have said but I appreciated the heart. So, if you choose to listen to his comments, please forgive the poor theology and a few bad words.
My Thoughts On The Death Of Charlie Kirk (Stephen A Smith – 16 minutes)It is time for our society to return to the days we can maturely discuss hard things and hear each other beyond our political biases and social divisions. We are all flawed but we also have value. There are at least two sides to understanding and solving every issue. Our faith in Christ should lead us to show respect in the middle of discussion. How else can we effectively improve our lives and culture? My hope is that our church will always be like that.
I believe Charlie Kirk is your and my brother in Christ. His family is devastated. I am saddened that his children will never get to know their father, and his wife has lost her soulmate. Many in the country are hurting today.
I am distraught that our culture is losing its soul.
- Pastor Mark