Spencer Cox, Governor of Utah full statement about Charlie Kirk is well worth a watch, whether you are a detractor or a fan of Charlie. Governor Cox talks about Charlie Kirk specifically, and the unique evil of political assassination with a call to response rightly.

TL;DR

• Charlie Kirk’s assassination is a tragedy
• We need to cherish and protect free speech
• We need to stay in dialogue with the people we disagree with, never demonizing them. Suppressing dialogue will ultimately lead to violence.
• Words themselves are not the same as physical violence. Responding to words, even what we consider “hate speech” with physical violence is the definition of hypocrisy.
• While it’s appropriate to reflect on someone’s legacy, it’s rude to do this before people have had a chance to grieve when someone was assassinated. My bad for not giving people time to grieve.

In Common

Yesterday I posted a short video which reported to be snippets of Charlie talking about what’s most important to him. I thought both critics and fans would benefit from it, especially, those of faith. Charlie noted that if he was to be remembered for one thing, it would be courageous in his faith. He acknowledged that there is a long list of things he has done wrong AND that thankfully, God’s grace covers it all. We all need grace. As Jesus asked as people were going to stone the women caught in adultery… “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” No one threw a stone.

In the video Charlie went on to say at the end of the day what matters is relations with God, family, friends, and truth.  On these points I agree with Charlie 100%.  I have earlier written about why I believe faith, truth, and love are absolutely central to the best life, the life God would have us live.

Too Soon… Doh!

I posted the of video what’s most important on Facebook with some comments. What surprised me, but it shouldn’t, was the strong reactions that my post provoked.

Now before I share the post, a caveat. I believe most ideas, and all people  are complex. I try to be accurate, to capture the complexity. As a result I often say more than is needed.  It’s a flaw, I know.  In the past, when reflecting on someone’s passing, I would remember and reflect on the full measure of the person.  Typically both their strengths and weaknesses.  The day my wife passed a friend called to comfort me. During a conversations we talked about Libby’s life and reminisce including laughing about how she could be prickly. Likewise, when I was processing my dad’s passing, I reflected on his many strengths, and one of his failings.  So for me, it’s ok not be 100% positive at the time of someone’s passing. 

Historically it has been considered appropriate that at the time of a public figures death, to consider their total impact (strengths and weaknesses), to reflect on the their legacy.

What I failed to recognize is that the rules seem to be different when someone was assassinated. In this case it seems “proper etiquette” is to delay those considerations while people morn.  As a friend pointed out… my timing was bad.

Here is my post (misspellings preserved)

charlie kirk, and  turning point usa were misguided… putting “american exceptionalism” narrative ahead of Jesus’ concerns and Jesus’ way. He thought guns in the hands of the people to defend agaist government tyancy was worth the colladeral damage. He is now one more, heartbreaking statistic. Differences should NOT be settled with violence and the use of physical force… but that is the way of our broken world often resolves issues. Jesus changed hearts and lives with LOVE and KINDNESS.  This is how we can change the world.  A friend sent us a video short pasting together charlie sharing his understand of everyone’s need for grace and forgiveness which is a good reminded for all of us… We need of humility and God’s grace.

A Good Man?

Several of my friends were troubled by my post. They expressed disappoint that I criticized the name of good and decent man.

As noted above, my timing was ill considered. That said, the cat seems to be “out of the bag”, so I guess I will lean in more.

My first observation is that disagreeing with someone position is not questioning someone’s decency or their “goodness”. Public discourse today is breaking down because people are attributing bad intent to people who hold a different viewpoints. I think Arthur Brooks has eloquently written about this in the book Love Your Enemies  and I briefly discuss it in my post Against Contempt.

I agree with Charlie on many fundamental issues and I disagree with him on other issues. I think he and I have many shared values, but see very different paths to implementing these shared values.

My second observation is that I am surprised that Christians, of all people, would call any human “good”.  Jesus in responding to someone calling Him good said in Mark 10:18

Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

We are all a mix and daily struggle. Charlie noted this in the video above, that he has a long list of failings. I don’t think he would have called himself a “good man”. I don’t know Charlie, but I would imagine he would be more comfortable with “a man with a mission”.

I would note that in case of a public figure, I think it’s arrogant for anyone to try to assess someone’s “goodness”. We have no idea what is their internal life is, nor what they do when the lights aren’t shining.  All we can talk about is what they said, what they did, and maybe what resulted from their life.

As someone who only recently has spend a small amount of time learning about Charlie Kirk, here is what I have noticed:

• Charlie was a champion of free speech. He was committed to talking with people who held views that opposed him. He was opposed to violence. People who are calling to “target” liberals, to fire / shutdown people who are saying unkind things about Charlie, and most certainly “revenge” would have Charlie turning in his grave. That is the last thing he would want. He always called for people to talk!!! I would encourage everyone to police their own tribe. If you just look at the “others” extremisms you will widen the gap. If you call your own to account, and let the reasonable people who are “other” do the same, the distance between us will shrink not grow.
• He was an effective debater. He won people to his position. Numerous people he debated with like Ezra Klein and Gavin Newsom have expressed great respect and appreciation for his forthrightness.
• He was a polarizing figure. He talked about issues in ways that inflamed some of his opponents. For example, when talking about affirmative action (which deserved to be debated – is it the right solution in response to hundreds of years of discrimination) he would sometimes pick straw men (or sometimes) people as an example and talk about them in a way that could be taken to be belittling. To someone it sounds extremely racist, that is my personal reaction to the soundbites, but I can see how part of this is my sensitivity. This is a common technique when trying to win an argument. Hit people’s hot buttons so they stop being rational and just react.
• He channelled the deep frustrations of many, especially young, white males and those who love them. White privilege has been a thing, but as more people have been embracing victimhood culture, these young men, and older men who have been left behind as our economy changed are finding themselves marginalized. They seem others having opportunities and making progress while they struggle to find jobs. They fear they have no future.
• He stood firm for his convictions, even when those positions were unpopular. He was unwilling to compromise or water down his positions to win people over. He was bold and courageous.

I rarely found myself aligned with Charlie’s up-front positions, but often I found myself align with his with what one article in Christianity Today referred to as his countermessage:

Kirk’s countermessage was a bit more doable: Get married. Have children. Plant yourself in a church. Take responsibility for something close to you, something that lasts. In an age where many delay adulthood and treat responsibility as optional, he called young men into permanence.

Polarization

Charlie Kirk has been a lightning rod in the American political landscape. While there are many evangelicals and members of MAGA who hold him in high esteem, there are many liberals, and a good number of moderates who are deeply troubled by his rhetoric and political positions.

Most people would agree that American society is becoming increasingly polarized, with some of us, the historical “middle of the road”, feeling disenfranchised by both sides. It seems like anything we say will be jumped on by one, if not both of the extremes, accusing us of siding with “the other”.

I knew of Charlie Kirk, just like a know of several people who would be considered his opposites. I never bothered to dig in and learn what they really thought. Their rhetoric seems too focused on “winning” rather than finding a path forward. I spend my limited time looking for small ways that I can impact my local community. I pay attention to people who are successfully bridge building and foster collaboration which is bringing about positive change on the local level. Maybe this is short sighted… or maybe this the the only way to bring about lasting change.

Context and Soundbites

Polarization in society is fueled by meme and comments which are lifted out of context. I would urge everyone that when you see an outrageous statement being reported by someone opposition, hunt down a full transcript to understand the context before jumping to judgement.

I just read the article Charlie in his own words, which reports to be a summary of several of Charlie’s positions with corresponding soundbites reported by the Guardian. Without context, I found the reported positions to range from true but rudely communicated, to horrid. On the surface, I am deeply troubling with what I read and saw in some of the video clips. It’s possible that these are out of context, but I am troubled that someone would say these things even if the context somewhat mitigates the statements.

Note: according to adfontesmedia.com (best bias dashboard according to grok), The Guardian is left leaning, and considered reliable (mixes reporting facts with analysis) as compared to say Fox or MSNBC which are rate as Hyper-Partisan and “reporting” opinion, no so much facts, with variable reliability.

I don’t know if the soundbites from The Guardian capturing Charlie’s core views, or if the sound bites were an over statement of an extreme position he was then going to interact with. Soundbites and single sentences lifted without context lose nuance and can lead to misunderstandings. This is an error both sides make.

I committed the sin of providing just a soundbite in my Facebook post. I regret this but it out there now. Here is what I wrote:

He thought guns in the hands of the people to defend agaist government tyancy was worth the colladeral damage. He is now one more, heartbreaking statistic.

Here is the full text and context. This question / answer was in light of the shooting at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee which left six victims dead, two wounded, and many traumatized. The following is pasted from transcription on snopes. I respectfully disagree with some of Charlie’s points, but this isn’t the time for that.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: How’s it going, Charlie? I’m Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I’m seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it’s important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff?

CHARLIE KIRK: Yeah, it’s a great question. Thank you. So, I’m a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don’t know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — “wow, that’s radical, Charlie, I don’t know about that” — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you’ve not read any 20th-century history. You’re just living in Narnia. By the way, if you’re actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you’re living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don’t know what alternative universe you’re living in. You just don’t want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you’re not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don’t know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That’s why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there’s not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there’s all these guns. Because everyone’s armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don’t our children?

Dialog!

I think we can all agree that free speech is critical to a healthy society. That we want an “free marketplace of ideas”.  This is enhanced by respectful dialogue.  Keeping the dialogue going and reaching for the truth is something I know Charlie repeatedly called all people toward. This is a good and worthy charge for all of us. Lets all lean into this.

There are some who suggest that while Charlie talked about dialog… he didn’t actually live it out. Rather he “weaponized” dialog.  I can’t assess this since I have not listened to “hours and hours” of his dialogue with others. I expect that given how polarization works, that those who are against Charlie likely don’t have nuanced view of him. They are opposed to a caricature of him.

I asked several LLM the question “Did Charlie Kirk advocate dialogue? Did he live this out?”

They all agree that he clearly called for dialogue. They all noted that he has critics who suggested his behavior was inconsistent with someone who is calling for respectful dialogue.  As to whether he lived this out consistently… I got different answers. The answer that seemed most factual came from claude.ai which focused on the result, rather than the intent

So while Kirk did advocate for and practice a form of open debate and engagement with opposing viewpoints, the quality and tone of that dialogue was often polarizing rather than bridge-building.

I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult to have effective dialog that goes beyond one to one… and that it’s best in person. The Bible talks about how we should be ready to engage with people, to explain our hope. We are also told speak the truth in love. This requires the courage to say hard things, but for those words to come from a heart filled empathy and concern for the other person’s well being. We aren’t there to “win” but to care for others. This is very hard to do when there is an audience. It’s challenging to have constructive conversations with more than a few people because what each person needs is different. I am sure there are some people who are able to engage others effectively in social media or in a more public setting… but I am sure I am not one of them.

Why I Said “Misguided”

As I wrote in Change the World? Love > Rule I believe a grave error The Church has repeatedly made over the centuries is to seek power. While this can be expedient in the short term… it is counter-productive over the centuries. I fear that evangelicalism in the USA has fallen into this trap.  Wanting their way now, they have forgotten Jesus’ way and His priorities. Much of the evangelical church has fallen into what Os Guiness called “cultural containment”, associating our faith with the culture we live in. People are mistaken when they think of the USA as a Christian country. Jesus made it plain that no human nation should be equated with His kingdom:

My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world. – John 18:26 (ESV)

God’s kingdom is in our hearts, not any nation state. As Paul wrote:

But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform ^four lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even ⁱto subject all things to himself. – Phil 3:20-21 (ESV)

Poor Responses

I have been very impressed with Governor Cox’s statements and really appreciate his call to unify against violence and support of the 2nd amendment which honors Charlie Kirk’s life work.

First, I am appalled by some who celebrated Charlie’s assassination. I am thankful that I didn’t see any of these sorts of comments appear in my social media feeds! As to the people to expressed joy… What is wrong with you people?!

I have been deeply disappointed with the Trump administration’s response. First there is threatening to close down anyone who speaks critically about Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk would be appalls by this.. he welcomed criticism. See a summary of his positive response to South Park “Kirk” parody!

Likewise the administration talking about targeting leftish because “they are fermenting violence” is crazy. Trump seems to have forgotten that Charlie is the second political assassination in the USA this year. The first being Melissa Hortman (who happened to be a democrat), who along with her husband were murdered in June along with several others that were wounded. Trump seems to care little about violence against the left as seen in these clips of him talking about Melissa Hortman and discussed in an article in Newsweek.

Classifying someone’s words as violence, and then using physical violence against them is the definition of hypocrisy. Targeting legislators to be killed, injured, harassed, or intimidated is not ok. We must stand against this sort of violence. Talking about “targeting” the other side is totally uncool and very un-American. We should cherish free speech. This is the time for both side to reign in their own when they step over the line, demonizing others. For heaven sake, we are all humans, beloved by God.

Thoughtful Responses

I don’t necessarily agree with these pieces, but each makes thought provoking statements:

• Why Charlie Kirk Landed with Young Men Like Me (Christianity Today)
• Charlie Kirk, Redeemed: A Political Class Finds Its Lost Cause (Vanity Fair)
• Barbara Kingsolver, Demon Copperhead and Charlie Kirk (my friend Jake)
• The Debate Me Bro Grift (Techdirt) a highly critical post which makes the case Charlie wasn’t authentically engaging

I feel nothing but deep sadness that Charlie’s life was ended prematurely by violence. Prayers for Charlie’s wife, children, and friends. Pray for our nation to heal, and that hatred and bitterness to be overcome by love, care, and service.