On Wednesday, US politically conservative influencer Charlie Kirk became a lead story globally by dying, the tragic victim of a shooting while he was engaging in public debate with students on a university campus.
Two thematic reflections that may be instructive.
I have never read or listened to anything by Charlie Kirk. Most of what I know about him, I just learned yesterday. So I’m not equipped to write an obituary. I will limit myself to two thematic reflections that may be instructive amidst this tragedy.
The first reflection is captured by the title of liberal New York Times columnist Ezra Klein’s essay: “Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way.” Kirk was colorful and provocative. Some found his views disgusting. But he did not hesitate to engage with his ideological adversaries, even on the unfriendly turf of liberal-leaning university campuses. He entered battle using words, not guns, and he did not seek to silence or intimidate anyone.
If the acceptability of a message is defined subjectively by the reader’s response to it, then free speech is impossible.
Liberal-leaning universities have not always been as honorable in that regard, frequently seeking to silence or disrespect opposing views. When my son was studying at one such college, he learned about a 2008 incident in which the school harshly disciplined two students for publishing a satire of a feminist journal on campus. The school’s explanation was that if anyone feels threatened by a message, then the message is unacceptable. But if the acceptability of a message is defined subjectively by the reader’s response to it, then free speech is impossible—indeed, no speech is safe.
In another episode 15 years later on the same campus, students turned their chairs around to face away from a graduation commencement speaker because they didn’t agree with some of the speaker’s views. And that was just minutes after the college’s president “had congratulated the class on its collective affinity for open-mindedness and critical thinking.”
Sadly, this so-called “cancel culture” has now spread to conservatives. Last month, the US Air Force Academy canceled a scheduled lecture by a professor from another university after discovering that she had criticized President Trump on social media.
Charlie Kirk exemplified the spirit of open debate so well that California governor and prominent liberal politician Gavin Newsom welcomed Kirk onto his podcast six months ago.
May we also embrace and embody that spirit of gracious, good-natured debate.
May we also embrace and embody that spirit of gracious, good-natured debate on matters of politics, the Christian faith, or any other topic important enough to be worth debating.
I offer my second reflection more cautiously. Conservatives and liberals are accusing each other of creating an environment that contributes to political violence. We need to be very careful about making cause-effect connections. However, I do believe that if we legitimize violence as a way to solve problems, we should not be surprised if others turn to violence also.
On September 2, US forces attacked a boat in the Caribbean Sea. The boat was in international waters, nowhere near the United States. Reportedly, 11 people were killed. The US government claims that the victims were drug traffickers associated with the Venezuelan gang called Tren de Aragua.
Normally, in such a situation, the military might use non-lethal weapons to disable the boat and then intercept and board it. They would not use lethal weapons unless they were attacked. As far as I know, no expert outside the US government considers the attack appropriate or legal.
Why did the US do this? Because they could.
A week later, someone climbed onto a building roof and killed Charlie Kirk. Why? Because he could.
“What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”
The US military has killed lots of people in war and in covert actions, but seldom has its aggression been so overt. As one US senator of the president’s own party said about the September 2 attack in the Caribbean, “What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”
I should respond briefly to one possible objection. Someone might say that people in the Bible inflicted violence on their opponents, even outside of war. Elijah putting false prophets to death would be one example. However, Elijah lived in a God-ordained theocracy that the prophets of Baal were intentionally subverting. There are no Christian theocracies today.
May our mourning for such violence inform our mission and public witness.
Originally published on Bruce Barron's "Gently Provocative Thoughts" Substack. Republished with permission.
Bruce Barron has had a varied career that included investigating the charismatic movement, dominion theology, political campaigning and public policy in the USA. From 2015-2024 he volunteered for the World Evangelical Alliance as a communications aide and was executive editor of the WEA's theological journal from 2018-2024. Among other activities, he directs editorial services for the Society of Christian Scholars. Bruce writes a regular Substack blog, which can be subscribed to here: https://brucebarron.substack.com.
