Charlie Kirk was shot and killed yesterday. Both political and Christian YouTube has gone absolutely nuts. In the video below, Mark Driscoll shares that Charlie told him that God was shifting him more towards evangelism and apologetics. Mark gets very emotional in the video, he had a deep respect for Charlie.
I had noticed that about a year ago, Charlie was embedding Christian messaging directly into his political rallies. He was incorporating basic evangelical gospel presentations, and calling young people to turn to Christ, although this was not the bulk of his messaging.
My normal stance on this is that 1) politics is a big stage battle, where all kinds of rhetoric is grossly tossed about, and evil and lies are the norm, and 2) Christians would be wise to steer clear of this for their primary messaging because Jesus mostly did so. Although I mostly liked Charlie Kirk’s messaging and style, my slight distance from embracing him was due to his full throated embrace of the Republican party, and that his primary messaging was political. I believe(d) that the solution to humanity is a Christian revival, that people be brought to the knowledge and submission to God and his will. Political involvement brings money and power into the picture, which I think is dangerous for most people, it is a corrupting force.
To be maximally charitable to Charlie and his work, I would say that by engaging directly into politics, this is an area where he can and will be able to interact with more people. Lets be practical, political outrage is the norm in our current society, nobody is truly isolated from it, and by playing in the big sandbox, he is talking to the most people. And for now, western culture encourages players from both sides to debate, create outrage, and get motivated to allocate more and more resources to mollify the outrage generated. And by daring to engage in the broadest context, his efforts to evangelize was multiplied a 100x greater than any individual pastor, street preacher, or bible teacher.
What is Next?
I worry that his death will be exploited to foment a violent revolutionary style reaction, which will then be the excuse to accelerate a bigger violent government response. The political forces involved would like the right-wing conservative element to go out and get violent (i.e. Jan 6 Insurrection), so that they can be crushed using the normal legal system. The problem is that conservative people don’t typically use violence, or at least wanton violence, and as such, violent reactions must be manufactured or hyper exaggerated. I anticipate the prior, meaning I believe actors with MAGA hats will be shown on media “getting revenge” for Charlie and be spouting off on how they can’t take it anymore.
I know people who own guns, and I know they wouldn’t go out and get revenge, because for decades, there have been tons of “conservatives with guns”, and there have been corrupt politicians and agents that probably deserved some “street vengeance” and it never happens. The reality is that conservative people like living in societal systems, they make money and follow laws, and have too much to lose just to right some big picture wrong. They are middle class, and they, unfortunately, typically don’t do anything to right societal wrongs, other than complain about how their political opposites are amoral.
Power Theory
To the activist/political actor, power (not God) is everything, and the ingredients to power are: 1) Influence , 2) Money and 3) Violence. I will also use the framework of categorizing people as lower, middle/upper and elite classes, with the elite being the billionaires that are the real power brokers.
Arguably, Jesus and the Christian message is peak influence, noting that Jesus used neither money nor violence. Influence is most powerful when it taps into the moral element of our self identity, everyone has a built in sense of goodness that must be satisfied. Propaganda is used to corrupt our definitions of goodness, but I think propaganda is only truly effective for about 2/3rds of society, and the remaining 1/3rd are highly resistant. Propaganda also goes both ways, so in theory, Christians have been engaged in the battle, but strictly in the realm of influence.
Money is the tool of the rich. Money is used to build mass media, which is used to convert money into influence and thus more power. It should come as no surprise then that media from the richest organizations should be viewed with the most skepticism. But ironically, the biggest media organizations are viewed as the most trustworthy, because people view money and influence as social proof of legitimacy.
The final element is violence. Violence is typically viewed as the tool of the poor, as its the lowly person in society that is given some license to lash out at the unfairness of the system. Communist revolutions are based on the “working class” rising up against the elite, using the only element of power they have. I believe this is a lie. Violence is actually a product of propaganda, which was produced by the elite, to create revolutions such that power can be collected by the victors. Violence is also typically the unique domain of government (police, military), but via propaganda, the most unscrupulous elite individuals can gain an army of poor revolutionaries to work towards their ends to topple even governments.
In Conclusion The Bigger Picture
The violent murder of Charlie Kirk, was a power play, perhaps enacted by a activist, or perhaps a professional (it doesn’t matter), because Charlie had amassed too much influence. Jesus had inspired the same reaction. When considering, what should my response be, or what is next, this is my conclusion.
Violence has never been in the domain of a Christian, at least not in the example nor teachings of Jesus. Instead, Martyrdom (named after Christian philosopher Justin Martyr) is the historical Christian response to persecution. This is specifically because Jesus never taught his followers to amass wealth, nor to use violence, but instead taught them that the ultimate in love is to lay down their lives for their friends. This may be a difficult message to receive in these times, as fear may run through both the Christian and the right wing advocate. But Jesus also taught us to not fear, and in faith to trust God. So, assuming that God was using Charlie Kirk, his death will have great purpose, and our response is not to try to grasp power (via violence nor money) to protect oneself. The Word of God is our power, and it must not be silenced.