In the context of the tremendous volume of voices responding to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, I don’t pretend to have anything novel to offer. The sermon on Sunday presented timely and universally applicable direction for us no matter the season: let the character of God, unstoppable promise, and sufficiency of Christ be first on our minds and first out of our mouths. I stand by that as the most helpful thing that can be said in any situation.
To address Charlie Kirk’s murder more directly is difficult. As I’m sure is the case for many of you, I still continue to process it. Who other than God can know the full import of such things? For what it is worth, I would like to share with you a couple of thoughts that have been prominent in my thoughts over the last week. The first is the surprising degree to which we have devalued human life. The second is how broadly comfortable our culture has become controlling the speech of others. Both issues should concern believers as they seek to follow Jesus in His work.
Who deserves to die and who can take their life?
Ultimately, every sinner deserves to die. “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Since all people have sinned (Romans 3:10-18), we can say of everyone, “he or she deserves to die.”
Importantly, God has declared Himself to be the sole determiner of when and how the wages of sin are paid (Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6). In accordance with His absolute right, He has forbidden murder (Exo 20:13; Rom 13:9). That is, God decides when man dies; man cannot decide when man dies. Every sinner deserves to die and God alone can determine the taking of their life.
Now, God values human life—even sinful human life—to the extent that He requires “a reckoning” for it. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen 9:6a). Why? “For God made man in His own image” (Gen 9:6b). Murder is a desecration of the image of God in man. So, long before the giving of the law of Moses, God prescribed capital punishment for the crime of murder. Capital punishment honors God by requiring a reckoning for the desecration of the image of God.[1]
So, the murderer deserves to die in a sense that other sinners do not. That is, the murderer deserves to forfeit at the hands of man the remainder of his or her life on this earth.
Therefore, there is a sense in which some do not deserve to die. In light of God’s value of human life and His declaration that only the murderer shall be put to death by man, it can be said of the non-murderer whose life is taken by man, “he or she did not deserve to die.” This does not deny the ultimate sense in which all sinners deserve to die. It simply recognizes that the person who has not committed murder must not have their life taken by man. In the realm of God-ordained human affairs, they have done nothing deserving of that specific penalty.
So all people should be very quick to condemn the taking of life in cases other than capital punishment. It should be a very straightforward and uncontroversial thing to say, “Charlie Kirk didn’t deserve to die.”
Yet, the way many have responded to Charlie Kirk’s assassination—even in sympathy—may indicate very concerning things about our culture.
“I didn’t agree with everything he said…”
Many decrying Kirk’s assassination have worded their statements something like, “I didn’t agree with everything he said, but he didn’t deserve to die.” Amen to the second half of that sentence. But why the preface? I have heard such disclaimers so often in the last week, it is almost as if it is the only socially acceptable way to denounce the assassination. The disclaimer troubles me for a couple of reasons, either of which should concern believers.
It may indicate we don’t value life as much as we think…
“I didn’t agree with everything he said…” This is one of the most obvious, universal, and therefore unnecessary caveats one could utter. Who agrees with everything anyone says? No one. So why give such a disclaimer before denouncing a murder? What is there to fear in giving an unqualified condemnation of a public execution?
It would seem obvious they fear being associated with all Kirk’s views, whether religious, social, political, or all the above. A more direct way of stating the disclaimer would be, “I just don’t want you to get the idea that my denouncing his murder means I agreed with him.”
The deeper question is, why would saying he didn’t deserve to die associate one with his religious and political views? Why would an unqualified, “He shouldn’t have been killed” or “he didn’t deserve to die,” lead to the response, “Oh, you agreed with him?” Perhaps, I’m missing something. I’d be delighted to be corrected. But it seems to me that these disclaimers may reveal a shared assumption that killing over speech/ideas is actually valid. If there was no such shared assumption, I can think of no other reason to preface the statement with a clarification—“I’m not saying I agree with him.”
If there is a shared view on some level that the expression of speech/ideas can warrant killing, then for many of those denouncing Kirk’s death it must be that death simply wasn’t warranted in this case.
At the same time, the disclaimer, “I didn’t agree with everything he said,” may indicate something else.
It may indicate…we now expect retaliation in response to ideas/speech.
This is related to the above. Again, it’s difficult to escape the notion that such disclaimers are intended to distance the speaker from Kirk’s views. But why does that matter so much? A painfully obvious and tragic answer is that every indication is Charlie Kirk was murdered for his views. To kill someone for their speech is the ultimate attempt to control the expression of ideas. Naturally, no one wants the same to happen to them. The pervasive caveat “I didn’t agree with everything he said,” may indicate just how automatic is the expectation of retaliation—up to and including death—for espousing unpopular views.
Is it possible that our culture is increasingly afraid to say obviously true things, like, “he didn’t deserve to die,” for fear of losing everything?
Both of these possibilities—that our culture has a low bar for what deserves death and that our culture is increasingly willing to control speech/ideas—should concern us as believers. We should keep the history of martydom in mind and recognize that it is a very short and simple turning of the tide that sees Christian speech as the intolerable speech that is worthy of death.
In fact, it is no leap to say that it is specifically Kirk’s Christian content that made him more intolerable than other conservative figures. It is possible that it is specifically his Christian content from which so many desire to distance themselves. That should sober us.
What ought we do with this soberness?
We ought to pray corporately for ourselves and our country. Read Acts 4. Those around them sought to control their gospel witness under threat of persecution. The saints’ first impulse was to pray together.
We ought to continue to speak the truth boldly, winsomely, without qualification. The truth of the gospel is what will change hearts. Not government programs, political parties, or social movements. Yet, we should allow the gospel to offend, not our demeanor or actions.
We ought to resist the temptation to participate in attempts to control the speech of others. When “cancelation” becomes the cultural norm for dealing with opposing ideas, it may only be a matter of time before the church and its message is next on the list.
We should meditate on God’s Word rather than man’s. It’s tempting in times like these to be glued to the news and social media. More than anything we need our thoughts to be informed by His, so that His truth is the filter through which we see the world.
[1] [There are certainly other things to consider about the bible’s teaching on capital punishment. (1) The law of Moses prescribes capital punishment for crimes other than murder (Exo 31:14-15; Lev 20:9-16, 27; 24:16-17; Deut 13:1-5; 17:2-7). While we can learn much about the character of God from these laws, the old covennant has been replaced by the new (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:6-13), and we do not live under the law (Rom 6:14; 7:6; Gal 3:23-25). I would argue that capital punishment for murder transcends the law of Moses in that God required it immediately after the flood prior to Sinai. (2) The NT indicates that the rendering of capital punishment is the responsibility of the governing authorities, not the individual (Rom 13:1-4). Therefore, even in the case of murder, the individual citizen does not have the right to take a life.]
Comments