Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Robert's avatar

Fortunately the author does stop short of outright calling Charlie Kirk a racist. Many have made that mistake. One important thing to point out is that Charlie Kirk never said, or treated people of color as "second-class citizens with lesser worth and intelligence" as the author states. When he made comments based on specific people's intelligence (namely Ketanji Brown Jackson and Michelle Obama) it was through the lens of DEI and Affirmative Action. I.e. hiring people based on criteria that involve immutable characteristics, rather than merit and actual qualifications. Ketanji Brown Jackson herself was selected by Joe Biden who himself promised to nominate "The first black woman to the Supreme Court" during his 2020 presidential campaign. Those are his words, not mine, per Time Magazine.

During her confirmation hearings, Jackson was unable to define the word "Woman". The ability to tell the difference between a man and a woman is in fact relevant to her position as a justice on the Supreme Court. She was unable to do so. This either calls her intelligence and/or integrity into question. There were certainly more qualified candidates available at the time who would be able to accurately answer such a question. Unfortunately, they were passed over because perhaps some were either not black, or not a woman (the criteria laid out by the President). Charlie Kirk's contention is that we are now worse off because we now have a justice on the Supreme Court who was selected because of her immutable characteristics rather than her merit (i.e. DEI/Affirmative Action in action).

In no way, shape, or form during that discussion did Charlie Kirk insinuate that ALL black women/POC's/etc. are of lesser intelligence or worth. That is a gross misrepresentation of his statement, which completely ignores the context and subject matter that was being directly discussed. Now you may disagree with his conclusions around DEI and that is perfectly fine. You may think immutable characteristics should be used when considering people for certain positions. Charlie Kirk makes his case why he does not think that is what is best for America, and you are free to make yours for the opposite position. This disagreement on public policy, however, does not make Charlie Kirk hateful or racist.

The difficult thing here is that the intersection of faith and politics is inherently messy. Nothing gets people fired up quite like these two subjects and then bring them together things get very contentious very quickly. I have wrestled with this myself. What is the Christians place in the public square? Should we get involved or not? If you choose to enter the political arena as a Christian, half of the country will automatically think you are deplorable without even knowing anything else about you. This will inevitably include some of your brothers and sisters in Christ who think a certain way about you because of your politics. Should Christians avoid this arena altogether because it is a minefield that is literally impossible to navigate without some calling you names like racist, bigot (on the right), or baby killer, groomer (on the left)? Hard to say, but I wouldn't want to think what the world would look like if it were devoid of Christians in positions of political leadership. There are many instances in the Bible where believers also happen to be in positions of high political influence so I don't think it is correct to shy away from it completely despite some of the ugly consequences.

So that leaves us with Charlie Kirk. Agree with him or not on his political stances that is fair. I myself don't align with 100% of his political stances or anywhere near for that matter. I have participated in every presidential election since 2008 but have never voted for Donald Trump, as he would have wanted me to. We can debate over things like DEI, abortion, the 2nd Amendment, LGBT, and immigration policy, and still at the end of the day come together as brothers and sisters in Christ. But what I don't think is fair is to characterize Charlie Kirk as a racist or a hatemonger. If you wish to see his unvarnished take on race, without the distraction of peripheral topics such as DEI, I encourage you to watch this short video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-Dscpvq2xeA

At the end of the day, we are left with his death and subsequent memorial service. Literally over a hundred million people saw the Gospel proclaimed as a result of that memorial service, AND COUNTING as it is still able to be viewed on YouTube and countless other places. It was, quite possibly, the single widest-viewed proclamation of the Gospel in human history. If even a small fraction of people came to faith as a result of that (we're still talking THOUSANDS of people), the eternal impact on the Kingdom that singular event had is unfathomable. Now you can claim that some people who spoke of the Gospel did so out of selfish reasons for political gain. Very possible that is the case. Others spoke the Gospel out of a pure heart. Literal millions saw a grieving widow forgive her husband's murderer. That is the power of the Holy Spirit on display for all to see. Regardless of who had what motive in proclaiming the Gospel, it was indeed proclaimed. And as Paul rejoiced in Philippians 1:15-18, I also rejoice, along with millions, without fear of crushing ANYBODY underfoot:

"Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice."

Expand full comment
Brian Roden's avatar

Let me say I have been dismayed at the number of shares I have seen of your article that do nothing more than accuse you of denigrating Kirk's legacy, and make no effort to understand the lived experience that led you to speak up.

While not related specifically to Kirk, this is related to the circles he ran in and supported. My wife is a native of Mexico. We've been married for 26 years. She became a naturalized citizen over 22 year ago. But because of the current rhetoric about immigrants, and the detentions that are just grabbing people because they speak Spanish, or their English has a strong accent, she now feels the need to keep her passport on her at all times, even on her short (under 5 mile) commute to her job as a bilingual school secretary.

While I may not personally be able to feel what you have experienced in all this, the person on earth closest to me does know what it feels like first-hand.

Expand full comment
132 more comments...

No posts