We can't possibly know which boys will or won't grow up to be lost in a sea of dangerous ideology and purposelessness, due to video game indoctrination. It is time Christians say no more to parking our kids behind an internet-connected screen or placing one in the palm of their hand.
"For example, I have noticed it’s really, really difficult to get a prominent evangelical critic of Trump to talk about gender ideology without attempting to “balance” the perspective. Transgenderism is a dangerous error, they write, “and so is [racism/xenophobia/misogyny].” This can pop up even in places where racism/xenophobia/misogyny are not even relevant to the topic, or when those sins are quite old and the sin of gender ideology is quite current. It’s not that this statement is incorrect. Those are sins! It’s that bringing them up feels like an attempt to change the topic, like the woman at the well who, when confronted by Jesus about her adultery, suddenly gets very good at asking theology questions."
I agree that this tendency exists (speaking as a Never-Trump/conservative/Evangelical myself), but I might suggest viewing it, rather than changing the subject, to be communicating, "Yes, these things on the left are really bad. You know what is preventing us from having a persuasive and effective voice to combat them? These things on the right? We need to get this stuff out of our own eyes so that we can properly help our neighbors to get that stuff out of theirs!"
It wasn't the Left that stormed the Capitol. Every 'left' President has transferred power peacefully, Trump plotted to retain it. I thank God that there were enough Republicans to stand in his way. (I'm sure there are plenty, they are just keeping their heads down until Trumpism passes.) Meanwhile, which state has just re-gerrymandered despite no census?
You might also need to adjust your sighting scope. By the standards of the advanced world, the Democrats are not 'left'. They are centrist, some centre-left and some centre-right. For example, I don't know of even one senior Democrat who has seriously proposed to nationalise the means of production, yet they are often called 'Marxists' by prominent MAGA figures. Here in Australia, even the hard-Right conservatives still have policies to retain our Universal Health Care and subsidised drugs (the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) that American Big Pharma so hates because it deprives them of a sellers' market. So Australian conservatives seem well to the Left of American Democrats.
Would it have been a big deal if it had been carried out by Communists? Apparently an attempted coup by the Right is 'no big deal' when it fails miserably; rinse and repeat.
It’s not a coup just because the Democrats said so. A real coup attempt would have involved guns, of which there were none present. It was a riot, of which there were many in 2020 and before.
Get back to me when your government apologizes for the Covid concentration camps.
The Left “stormed the Capitol” on multiple occasions in 2020, notably during the Kavanaugh nomination. But that “doesn’t count” because… well, you can’t be bothered to find out.
Maybe that is what they do care about, but what I want them to care about is the actual sins. Though I'd hardly consider myself a "fan" of Charlie Kirk, something that I really respected him for was actually trying to persuade his interlocutors that they were wrong, rather than just trying to disenfranchise or disempower them.
I don't want to sound sanctimonious, but that is the opposite of the attitude that Christ exemplified. But either way, turning our attention to our own failings and seeking to purify the sins that plague our movement doesn't logically imply that we would be just allowing ourselves to be marched to the guillotine. An army that neglects its own flaws is not more likely to prevail than one that seeks to identify, scrutinize, and excise them.
I don't know what goes on in the hearts and minds of every Never Trump Conservative Evangelical reader of yours, but I know what goes on inside this NTCE. I read Michael Reneau's piece on Kirk at The Dispatch and this one line jumped out at me: "In addition to grieving a man’s murder, I’m also grieving the distance between myself and fellow believers..." That grieving, for me, is real and ongoing. One of the spiritual lifelines, outside my local church, that the Lord has used to keep me sane and faithful over this last decade has been the depressingly small number of voices like yours who have, in various ways and degrees, stood athwart the MAGAfication of the American Right and, more importantly, the conservative American evangelical church. While Never-Trumping is not what you're primarily about (something I’m thankful for!), you're willingness to offer critiques in that direction, without making leftward compromises (a rare feat!), is a feature of you're writing and thinking many of us are drawn to and appreciate.
Because the remnant of voices like yours is so small (or at least perceived to be so), an apparent move toward MAGA by one of them can really sting. I don't feel stung by your initial piece on Kirk, though I wasn't tracking with all of it. (And that's OK! Better than OK! We need to challenge one another and not be threatened by every minor disagreement with brothers and sisters in Christ.) But I think I understand why so many of your readers passionately pushed back.
Also, for at least some of us, the issue is not a matter of straight-line thinking, but of a concern that our long-term ability as Christian individuals and communities to stay faithful, broadly and specifically on these hot-button social issues, is threatened by the toleration of the intensely partisan and *reality-denying* MAGA movement. How can a community long hold onto realities relating to gender - or anything else - when it has for years now calloused its conscious to embracing or, at best, ignoring a myriad of obvious falsities?
I hope all the pushback is not discouraging you and I hope none of your paid subscribers jump ship. You're a vital voice and I share your content with friends and family regularly.
The issue with the “straight line” comment is I can walk into a church and hear more people say “homosexuals should burn in hell” on a given Sunday than I will interact with trans people in a decade. Much fanfare is given to the “liberal trans agenda” than is ever given to the hardness of heart I interact with regularly in the church.
You can walk in a straight line in your endorsement of Kirk ideals, but that straight line isn’t always walking toward the cross. How do we reconcile the other things he said that dehumanized image bearers of Christ? I know you’re a brother in Christ, I am just advocating for more nuance and understanding that hell bent advocacy in the camp of conservatism is going to limit your perspective and exposure outside of what you already believe to be true about our country and the people who inhabit it. I’m exhausted by the boogeyman of the liberal agenda as a scapegoat for not dealing with other issues that plague the church. You can say that’s not walking in a straight line, but really it’s just holding fast that a church that is first known by humility and love is more effective than one who strives to snatch and keep power. Maybe you go to a church like the former now and that’s why you are more critical of the liberal agenda, but a lot of Christians in America are being failed by unqualified leadership and a shallow interpretation of the gospel.
As an observer of friends who were raised in strict, fundamentalist homes reject it, and instead of finding a flourishing faith in Jesus, are walking down a path of growing in anger and a complete rejection of him, I really do know what you mean about paths leading nowhere helpful or good for their souls or society at large. I really do understand what you’re saying and agree in part.
My husband is in the army and I was recently speaking to a chaplain about how I personally think one of the greatest failings of the church in recent decades is prioritizing teaching people how they should think about others instead of how to love and be a neighbor to them. Many teens grow up hearing about the evils of homosexuality and then meet a gay coworker or classmate and are like “uh what do I do with this?” How do you interact lovingly with someone you’ve been taught to view as participating in evil depravity?
This is why I think isolation - either individually chained to the algorithm intent on radicalizing you or the isolation of “us vs them” faith (even if it’s tied to “meaningful membership”) is more complex than the framework you’ve laid out. I’m not suggesting that you are proposing to have all of the answers, and I do mean this charitably, but sometimes it’s ok to recognize the limits of your exposure and the sheer complexity of what you are discussing. It’s also true that your comments about Charlie Kirk will always get some pushback due to the nature of him also being a complex and divisive person.
As to how this relates to political violence…it’s why we can see kids who were raised in “good, Christian, conservative” families participate it.
They were raised to think in absolutes and extremes. They are prime targets for radicalization because fear is a greatest driver to action. When you’re raised in fear - fear of culture, of the left, of the devil lurking around every corner, and the wrong person or group capitalizes on that - action is necessary, regardless of the cost. And this also applies to my friends who were raised that way, rejected Christianity, and now apply those principles to the left.
Yes, a lot of men have been left behind and failed, but they’ve also been discipled to behave in increasingly radical ways.
'Evangelical' means different things to different people. In most of the advanced world, what Americans call 'evangelical' would instead be called 'literalist' or even 'fundamentalist'. It is this attitude of "There's only ONE right answer!" that drives American extremism and thereby demonises any different opinion. All that's needed is to turn the switch from one absolute to another.
That is NOT the result of 'secular progressivism'. All the symptoms mentioned, such as isolation, suggest it is better to call it 'individualism'. America above all nations idolises the Rugged Individual, which is probably why American culture is more violent and self-assertive. A sense of community is more likely to be found within minorities such as the poor, Afro-Americans, Hispanics, etc who need support from each other in the face of a hostile environment, rather than among the middle-class white Charlie Kirks of America. A stronger sense of community despite differences would go a long way towards closing this rift, rather than Charlie's deliberately provocative and sometimes inflammatory approach.
There is no "gospeling" without the proclamation of the Gospel. Christians are Gospeling people by nature. To paraphrase Moody, I liked Charlie Kirk's way of doing it better than 95 percent of the Church's way of NOT doing it.
Show me a person who hates Charlie Kirk and thinks he got what was coming to him (as an unbelievable amount of people in my life seem to think...all the better to shut them out completely and permanently) and I'll show you someone who fundamentally doesn't believe in evangelism as the Scripture presents it. Going deeper, I'm willing to bet 85-90 percent of them don't believe Jesus is Lord exclusively and that repentance and faith are needed in order to be saved.
As to a sense of community, Charlie Kirk started his work when he was 18 because he was part of a generation who were beat down ideologically from the moment they stepped into the education mill. He built the largest college-aged youth movement this country has ever seen in a time when leftist policy dominated and suppressed any form of conservative Christian thought. He did it by unashamedly and unreservedly (and perhaps caustically to some) going into the belly of the beast and saying "Let's talk."
What I hear in the criticisms of him that don't openly celebrate the blood spurting out of his neck (I've seen teachers, military officers, health care workers, youth pastors, and government employees doing just that) is the basic underlying idea that he should have stayed home and kept his mouth shut. And underneath is that tacit assumption that liberal/progressive ways of being are the correct foundational ones and there's no room for a criticism of them.
He built a 100s of thousands-strong international community of people who were empowered by logic, reason, and faith to be who they are and to boldly stand for what they believed in during a time when dissent from progressive orthodoxy was academic and career suicide.
Maybe the college system needed to hear someone say "transgender ideology is false, dangerous, and easily repudiated by a simple logical argument." What I hear from "appropriate" evangelical critics of him is "If you do that you can't complain if someone shoots you in the throat as a public spectacle in front of people who love you."
Which is the most goddamned evil thing I can think of.
There is so much where I can agree with you in your post. And I also like Charlie's 'come debate with me!' approach rather than sitting in the bowels of an empty church.
I DON'T think Charlie deserved what happened to him. I don't believe ANYONE deserves to be murdered. Even when Bin Laden was taken down I didn't celebrate. I just regretted that a man with that charisma hadn't spent his life more constructively.
It's what you don't say that disturbs me. I don't think 'outing' homosexuals, etc is helpful. I don't think that politics should shape faith; rather it should be the other way around. And for that to be truly a Christian politic, it has to be respectful of individuals of all kinds, just as God sends the rain on the unjust a well as the just.
I think Charlie failed to show that respect as fully as he should have. That doesn't mean that he 'deserved' to die, but it did infuriate people. When you infuriate enough people, specially needlessly, that increases your chances of dying needlessly.
I disagreed with much of what Charlie said, and I found his theology simplistic to the point of misleading in some details; but while I would have debated him on some issues, I would never have wanted him silenced. He created spaces where Christian things could be discussed, and that's a great ministry regardless of the details.
Some people live to be infuriated. I don’t think Charlie ever tried to belittle or hurt anyone . I also do not believe politics shaped his faith, and don’t understand why you think it did.
Yes, some people delight in taking offence. Also, some people who have been the victims of persecution are hyper-sensitive to unkind words because they are so often the prelude to (or excuses for) persecution. Whether Charlie meant hurt or not, I suspect that many people WERE hurt by his words. Charlie could have been more sensitive, but unfortunately in America the media don't pay attention to moderation. They revel in the extreme. Those extremes are often spread out of context, or even in an 'edited' context to maximise impact. As I said, "I think Charlie failed to show that respect as fully as he should have. That doesn't mean that he 'deserved' to die, but it did infuriate people. "
As for politics shaping faith or the other way around... Did Charlie's politics shape his understanding of how his faith should be lived out? Perhaps, perhaps not. Did his understanding of his faith shape his politics? If it did, then what understanding of the Gospel moves someone to his specifics? I don't see in his public position as much concern for the poor, the vulnerable, the outcast as I would expect.
This is why we need to debate these issues, which Charlie was prepared to do. He did that aggressively, because otherwise the media would ignore it, but not violently; unfortunately, many others used him as the thin edge of their own agendas which were much less loving. By linking Charlie to their own agendas, they tarred Charlie as if one their own.
Please read my post again, in the light of this clarification.
Absolutely correct, Kelsey! Most church members seem much more judgmental of the sins "THEY" commit than the sins that "WE" commit every day of the week without remorse.
Obviously one’s own experience affects their perceptions, but I’ve spent decades in conservative, reformed churches and never once heard the statement “homosexuals should burn in hell” or its equivalent. And I’ve interacted with too many “trans” youth, including within my own extended family and from within those same reformed evangelical congregations.
I’m not aware of any time that Kirk “dehumanized image bearers of Christ” – I’ve never followed him closely but have long considered him an unusually compassionate and genuinely caring voice for sanity. In a movement that is mostly dominated by loud voices shouting into their own echo chambers, Kirk stood out for his willingness to engage with his opponents on their own ground, treat them with respect, and reason with honesty.
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I’m brand new to your substack so forgive me if that becomes blatant through my comment. I feel like you are trying too hard to parse out “which sin is worse” when looking at two groups of humans. Two sides of the same coin. It is naive to me, to look at our major political parties and think one could possibly sin worse when the Bible says all have sinned. Perhaps you’re bringing a more nuanced perspective that I’m not gathering from seeing just 1 or 2 of your posts.
That is why my husband and I refuse to take sides, we are neither Democrat or Republican, we are on the side what is right. We call out both sides when we see an abuse of power. I care about whether people are being hurt, and this administration is hurting and dividing families friends, literally destroying this country.
I also called out the abuse of power when the Biden administration's vaccine mandate, that was wrong that caused people to lose their jobs.
We need to call out when we see abuse of power no matter what the political party that is in power at the time.
I do not mourn Charlie Kirk because he is a stranger to me. I feel bad for his family, and it was wrong he was assisinated, but he does not deserve the level of attention he is getting, its all political. He was a darling of the current administration and that is why such a big deal is being made. Nothing about others that were killed or attempted to be killed in the last few months.
We are even at odds with my in-laws who want to force us to take a side politically and wants us to drink the Maga Kool aid that they have. They basically told us that all democrats are evil.
My husband and I refuse to be coerced or forced to play into more division. Our allegiance is the Jesus Christ, who transcends political parties and loves ALL of humanity. Every human being is made in the image of God and is a sinner.
We are living in increasing chaotic and dangerous division, all we have is Jesus Christ to lean on.
Blame it on my own media consumption, or ascribe it to the more moderate evangelical spaces I inhabit, but the role of Charlie Kirk as a Christian apologist was new to me. I had had him in a purely political box. Thus as with all new information, it's going to take some time to digest, to consider and perhaps appreciate. Was he a martyr? Perhaps. Although an equally likely scenario is that that public nature of the murder was itself the justification, the need our society pushes for public performances, that only by performance am I in some sense alive.
This in turn leads to the more regrettable aspect of the essay, ascribing the values to "secular progressivism". It seems far more likely to note that these values are leveraged, accelerated by the current algorithmic culture and in particular its intersection with young men. The repeated horror of young men and guns and a school is too well known, too often driven by the sort of despair fueled by algorithms and the social media desire to be seen. The emergence of the political posture of technology leaders undercuts any narrative that such algorithmic driven narratives possess a particular political color.
It does seem, on the other hand, that given this algorithmic-driven disease, this disconnection and fundamental disembodiment, Christians have a different task in front of them than jumping into this or that familiar political box.
I'm going to go out on a limb as information continues to flood in that Kirk was shot in the throat precisely for having a Christian view of transgenderism.
"In the last year, I have noticed that a core group of my regular readership appears to be more on the NeverTrump side of the political spectrum..."
I would say, good for you and good for us.
I would also take exception to your "experience and straight line criticism". For close to two years now, I have sought six times a week to daily "go where the Bible takes me" as I continue the practice of my late wife and I of reading through the Bible every year.
My experience of having a gay married daughter raising my only two grandchildren certainly impacts my exposition. However, I hope what I write builds on sound exegesis...
Samuel, I’ve only just stumbled across your writing and am glad to have done so. I’m unapologetically a “Never Trumper” whose opposition to transgenderism is on an entirely different level. Neither prominent nor influential , but we’re out here.
I think it poor manners to link one’s own writing on another author’s page without an invitation, but if you take a look at my own Substack you won’t find any hesitation to confront trans ideology head-on.
"Neither rationally nor psychologically is sin to be traced back to a disposition or action which has any reason or right to exist... (Sin) was and is and will eternally remain in conflict with the law of God and with the testimony of our own conscience."
The Governor of Utah might be a Mormon but in his decency and moderation he speaks for all who want peace to prevail. Thank God for those like him! Many in Britain who love America are praying for the USA today.
Very thoughtful. This is a tighter and more comprehensive framework compared to what I've been bouncing around in my own head.
There are untethered, unwell loners on the right. But I do think it's more of a problem on the left, even if the vast majority of people who vote Democrat are not unwell loners. The church is a large part of the reason for this discrepancy, though the family is another. Both attending a church and building a family are partisan projects like never before.
One thing about godless philosophies is they have a tendency to be unbalanced in a way that promotes monomania. "Who, whom," as the famously monomaniacal Lenin said. By contrast, even the major false religions contain multitudes. I haven't ever put myself in the position of defending Islam, but I can say with confidence that Islam is a lot more than its most strawmanned caricature might suggest. It isn't just a project about destroying the Great Satan, or covering up women, etc. etc. It's a whole-life philosophy that, for most people in most times, means supporting a virtuous life dedicated to family.
I don't think that, for example, "Trans Rights Now" as a life philosophy has this going for it. It offers nothing in support of personal virtue or a balanced life. But it does a LOT to promote monomaniacal obsession.
If you have a family to take care of that you actually live with and would never abandon, you can only be so monomaniacal in pursuit of other things. Of course, this produces a gap in understanding. The childless struggle to understand the impact when we point out Kirk's children. And in turn, when someone comes after a father like that, it comes across as especially personal to the rest of us.
I think this essay, and your piece last week, have done more for me in clarifying the "vibe shift" in my own soul more than almost anything else in the last few years. It's an incredibly helpful framework, and your moral clarity in a confusing time is very helpful. Thank you.
We can't possibly know which boys will or won't grow up to be lost in a sea of dangerous ideology and purposelessness, due to video game indoctrination. It is time Christians say no more to parking our kids behind an internet-connected screen or placing one in the palm of their hand.
what? How about you actually teach them how to be Christian first, or this will get you right back where you started
"For example, I have noticed it’s really, really difficult to get a prominent evangelical critic of Trump to talk about gender ideology without attempting to “balance” the perspective. Transgenderism is a dangerous error, they write, “and so is [racism/xenophobia/misogyny].” This can pop up even in places where racism/xenophobia/misogyny are not even relevant to the topic, or when those sins are quite old and the sin of gender ideology is quite current. It’s not that this statement is incorrect. Those are sins! It’s that bringing them up feels like an attempt to change the topic, like the woman at the well who, when confronted by Jesus about her adultery, suddenly gets very good at asking theology questions."
I agree that this tendency exists (speaking as a Never-Trump/conservative/Evangelical myself), but I might suggest viewing it, rather than changing the subject, to be communicating, "Yes, these things on the left are really bad. You know what is preventing us from having a persuasive and effective voice to combat them? These things on the right? We need to get this stuff out of our own eyes so that we can properly help our neighbors to get that stuff out of theirs!"
I’d disagree, because the left doesn’t care about the actual sins. They care about power. The sins are clubs they use to gain power.
Really, Eric! "The Left care about power"?
It wasn't the Left that stormed the Capitol. Every 'left' President has transferred power peacefully, Trump plotted to retain it. I thank God that there were enough Republicans to stand in his way. (I'm sure there are plenty, they are just keeping their heads down until Trumpism passes.) Meanwhile, which state has just re-gerrymandered despite no census?
You might also need to adjust your sighting scope. By the standards of the advanced world, the Democrats are not 'left'. They are centrist, some centre-left and some centre-right. For example, I don't know of even one senior Democrat who has seriously proposed to nationalise the means of production, yet they are often called 'Marxists' by prominent MAGA figures. Here in Australia, even the hard-Right conservatives still have policies to retain our Universal Health Care and subsidised drugs (the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) that American Big Pharma so hates because it deprives them of a sellers' market. So Australian conservatives seem well to the Left of American Democrats.
No one cares about January 6, it was not a big deal, you're delusional now if you still think about it.
I will leave it at that
Hi, Gray!
Would it have been a big deal if it had been carried out by Communists? Apparently an attempted coup by the Right is 'no big deal' when it fails miserably; rinse and repeat.
It’s not a coup just because the Democrats said so. A real coup attempt would have involved guns, of which there were none present. It was a riot, of which there were many in 2020 and before.
Get back to me when your government apologizes for the Covid concentration camps.
The Left “stormed the Capitol” on multiple occasions in 2020, notably during the Kavanaugh nomination. But that “doesn’t count” because… well, you can’t be bothered to find out.
Eric,
Thanks for letting me know that you don't have much respect for the truth. Have a good week!
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Which party, Eric?
Maybe that is what they do care about, but what I want them to care about is the actual sins. Though I'd hardly consider myself a "fan" of Charlie Kirk, something that I really respected him for was actually trying to persuade his interlocutors that they were wrong, rather than just trying to disenfranchise or disempower them.
That’s nice. I’d like them to not kill me. Once that happens, I’ll worry about the sins.
I don't want to sound sanctimonious, but that is the opposite of the attitude that Christ exemplified. But either way, turning our attention to our own failings and seeking to purify the sins that plague our movement doesn't logically imply that we would be just allowing ourselves to be marched to the guillotine. An army that neglects its own flaws is not more likely to prevail than one that seeks to identify, scrutinize, and excise them.
And how well has that worked so far?
I'm pretty sure the movement has taken your view of appropriate strategy. Maybe you think it's going great.
What?
I don't know what goes on in the hearts and minds of every Never Trump Conservative Evangelical reader of yours, but I know what goes on inside this NTCE. I read Michael Reneau's piece on Kirk at The Dispatch and this one line jumped out at me: "In addition to grieving a man’s murder, I’m also grieving the distance between myself and fellow believers..." That grieving, for me, is real and ongoing. One of the spiritual lifelines, outside my local church, that the Lord has used to keep me sane and faithful over this last decade has been the depressingly small number of voices like yours who have, in various ways and degrees, stood athwart the MAGAfication of the American Right and, more importantly, the conservative American evangelical church. While Never-Trumping is not what you're primarily about (something I’m thankful for!), you're willingness to offer critiques in that direction, without making leftward compromises (a rare feat!), is a feature of you're writing and thinking many of us are drawn to and appreciate.
Because the remnant of voices like yours is so small (or at least perceived to be so), an apparent move toward MAGA by one of them can really sting. I don't feel stung by your initial piece on Kirk, though I wasn't tracking with all of it. (And that's OK! Better than OK! We need to challenge one another and not be threatened by every minor disagreement with brothers and sisters in Christ.) But I think I understand why so many of your readers passionately pushed back.
Also, for at least some of us, the issue is not a matter of straight-line thinking, but of a concern that our long-term ability as Christian individuals and communities to stay faithful, broadly and specifically on these hot-button social issues, is threatened by the toleration of the intensely partisan and *reality-denying* MAGA movement. How can a community long hold onto realities relating to gender - or anything else - when it has for years now calloused its conscious to embracing or, at best, ignoring a myriad of obvious falsities?
I hope all the pushback is not discouraging you and I hope none of your paid subscribers jump ship. You're a vital voice and I share your content with friends and family regularly.
God Bless!
The issue with the “straight line” comment is I can walk into a church and hear more people say “homosexuals should burn in hell” on a given Sunday than I will interact with trans people in a decade. Much fanfare is given to the “liberal trans agenda” than is ever given to the hardness of heart I interact with regularly in the church.
You can walk in a straight line in your endorsement of Kirk ideals, but that straight line isn’t always walking toward the cross. How do we reconcile the other things he said that dehumanized image bearers of Christ? I know you’re a brother in Christ, I am just advocating for more nuance and understanding that hell bent advocacy in the camp of conservatism is going to limit your perspective and exposure outside of what you already believe to be true about our country and the people who inhabit it. I’m exhausted by the boogeyman of the liberal agenda as a scapegoat for not dealing with other issues that plague the church. You can say that’s not walking in a straight line, but really it’s just holding fast that a church that is first known by humility and love is more effective than one who strives to snatch and keep power. Maybe you go to a church like the former now and that’s why you are more critical of the liberal agenda, but a lot of Christians in America are being failed by unqualified leadership and a shallow interpretation of the gospel.
As an observer of friends who were raised in strict, fundamentalist homes reject it, and instead of finding a flourishing faith in Jesus, are walking down a path of growing in anger and a complete rejection of him, I really do know what you mean about paths leading nowhere helpful or good for their souls or society at large. I really do understand what you’re saying and agree in part.
My husband is in the army and I was recently speaking to a chaplain about how I personally think one of the greatest failings of the church in recent decades is prioritizing teaching people how they should think about others instead of how to love and be a neighbor to them. Many teens grow up hearing about the evils of homosexuality and then meet a gay coworker or classmate and are like “uh what do I do with this?” How do you interact lovingly with someone you’ve been taught to view as participating in evil depravity?
This is why I think isolation - either individually chained to the algorithm intent on radicalizing you or the isolation of “us vs them” faith (even if it’s tied to “meaningful membership”) is more complex than the framework you’ve laid out. I’m not suggesting that you are proposing to have all of the answers, and I do mean this charitably, but sometimes it’s ok to recognize the limits of your exposure and the sheer complexity of what you are discussing. It’s also true that your comments about Charlie Kirk will always get some pushback due to the nature of him also being a complex and divisive person.
As to how this relates to political violence…it’s why we can see kids who were raised in “good, Christian, conservative” families participate it.
They were raised to think in absolutes and extremes. They are prime targets for radicalization because fear is a greatest driver to action. When you’re raised in fear - fear of culture, of the left, of the devil lurking around every corner, and the wrong person or group capitalizes on that - action is necessary, regardless of the cost. And this also applies to my friends who were raised that way, rejected Christianity, and now apply those principles to the left.
Yes, a lot of men have been left behind and failed, but they’ve also been discipled to behave in increasingly radical ways.
Kelsey has got it right.
'Evangelical' means different things to different people. In most of the advanced world, what Americans call 'evangelical' would instead be called 'literalist' or even 'fundamentalist'. It is this attitude of "There's only ONE right answer!" that drives American extremism and thereby demonises any different opinion. All that's needed is to turn the switch from one absolute to another.
That is NOT the result of 'secular progressivism'. All the symptoms mentioned, such as isolation, suggest it is better to call it 'individualism'. America above all nations idolises the Rugged Individual, which is probably why American culture is more violent and self-assertive. A sense of community is more likely to be found within minorities such as the poor, Afro-Americans, Hispanics, etc who need support from each other in the face of a hostile environment, rather than among the middle-class white Charlie Kirks of America. A stronger sense of community despite differences would go a long way towards closing this rift, rather than Charlie's deliberately provocative and sometimes inflammatory approach.
There is no "gospeling" without the proclamation of the Gospel. Christians are Gospeling people by nature. To paraphrase Moody, I liked Charlie Kirk's way of doing it better than 95 percent of the Church's way of NOT doing it.
Show me a person who hates Charlie Kirk and thinks he got what was coming to him (as an unbelievable amount of people in my life seem to think...all the better to shut them out completely and permanently) and I'll show you someone who fundamentally doesn't believe in evangelism as the Scripture presents it. Going deeper, I'm willing to bet 85-90 percent of them don't believe Jesus is Lord exclusively and that repentance and faith are needed in order to be saved.
As to a sense of community, Charlie Kirk started his work when he was 18 because he was part of a generation who were beat down ideologically from the moment they stepped into the education mill. He built the largest college-aged youth movement this country has ever seen in a time when leftist policy dominated and suppressed any form of conservative Christian thought. He did it by unashamedly and unreservedly (and perhaps caustically to some) going into the belly of the beast and saying "Let's talk."
What I hear in the criticisms of him that don't openly celebrate the blood spurting out of his neck (I've seen teachers, military officers, health care workers, youth pastors, and government employees doing just that) is the basic underlying idea that he should have stayed home and kept his mouth shut. And underneath is that tacit assumption that liberal/progressive ways of being are the correct foundational ones and there's no room for a criticism of them.
He built a 100s of thousands-strong international community of people who were empowered by logic, reason, and faith to be who they are and to boldly stand for what they believed in during a time when dissent from progressive orthodoxy was academic and career suicide.
Maybe the college system needed to hear someone say "transgender ideology is false, dangerous, and easily repudiated by a simple logical argument." What I hear from "appropriate" evangelical critics of him is "If you do that you can't complain if someone shoots you in the throat as a public spectacle in front of people who love you."
Which is the most goddamned evil thing I can think of.
G'day, Luke!
There is so much where I can agree with you in your post. And I also like Charlie's 'come debate with me!' approach rather than sitting in the bowels of an empty church.
I DON'T think Charlie deserved what happened to him. I don't believe ANYONE deserves to be murdered. Even when Bin Laden was taken down I didn't celebrate. I just regretted that a man with that charisma hadn't spent his life more constructively.
It's what you don't say that disturbs me. I don't think 'outing' homosexuals, etc is helpful. I don't think that politics should shape faith; rather it should be the other way around. And for that to be truly a Christian politic, it has to be respectful of individuals of all kinds, just as God sends the rain on the unjust a well as the just.
I think Charlie failed to show that respect as fully as he should have. That doesn't mean that he 'deserved' to die, but it did infuriate people. When you infuriate enough people, specially needlessly, that increases your chances of dying needlessly.
I disagreed with much of what Charlie said, and I found his theology simplistic to the point of misleading in some details; but while I would have debated him on some issues, I would never have wanted him silenced. He created spaces where Christian things could be discussed, and that's a great ministry regardless of the details.
Some people live to be infuriated. I don’t think Charlie ever tried to belittle or hurt anyone . I also do not believe politics shaped his faith, and don’t understand why you think it did.
Hi Dennis,
Yes, some people delight in taking offence. Also, some people who have been the victims of persecution are hyper-sensitive to unkind words because they are so often the prelude to (or excuses for) persecution. Whether Charlie meant hurt or not, I suspect that many people WERE hurt by his words. Charlie could have been more sensitive, but unfortunately in America the media don't pay attention to moderation. They revel in the extreme. Those extremes are often spread out of context, or even in an 'edited' context to maximise impact. As I said, "I think Charlie failed to show that respect as fully as he should have. That doesn't mean that he 'deserved' to die, but it did infuriate people. "
As for politics shaping faith or the other way around... Did Charlie's politics shape his understanding of how his faith should be lived out? Perhaps, perhaps not. Did his understanding of his faith shape his politics? If it did, then what understanding of the Gospel moves someone to his specifics? I don't see in his public position as much concern for the poor, the vulnerable, the outcast as I would expect.
This is why we need to debate these issues, which Charlie was prepared to do. He did that aggressively, because otherwise the media would ignore it, but not violently; unfortunately, many others used him as the thin edge of their own agendas which were much less loving. By linking Charlie to their own agendas, they tarred Charlie as if one their own.
Please read my post again, in the light of this clarification.
Absolutely correct, Kelsey! Most church members seem much more judgmental of the sins "THEY" commit than the sins that "WE" commit every day of the week without remorse.
Obviously one’s own experience affects their perceptions, but I’ve spent decades in conservative, reformed churches and never once heard the statement “homosexuals should burn in hell” or its equivalent. And I’ve interacted with too many “trans” youth, including within my own extended family and from within those same reformed evangelical congregations.
I’m not aware of any time that Kirk “dehumanized image bearers of Christ” – I’ve never followed him closely but have long considered him an unusually compassionate and genuinely caring voice for sanity. In a movement that is mostly dominated by loud voices shouting into their own echo chambers, Kirk stood out for his willingness to engage with his opponents on their own ground, treat them with respect, and reason with honesty.
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I’m brand new to your substack so forgive me if that becomes blatant through my comment. I feel like you are trying too hard to parse out “which sin is worse” when looking at two groups of humans. Two sides of the same coin. It is naive to me, to look at our major political parties and think one could possibly sin worse when the Bible says all have sinned. Perhaps you’re bringing a more nuanced perspective that I’m not gathering from seeing just 1 or 2 of your posts.
That is why my husband and I refuse to take sides, we are neither Democrat or Republican, we are on the side what is right. We call out both sides when we see an abuse of power. I care about whether people are being hurt, and this administration is hurting and dividing families friends, literally destroying this country.
I also called out the abuse of power when the Biden administration's vaccine mandate, that was wrong that caused people to lose their jobs.
We need to call out when we see abuse of power no matter what the political party that is in power at the time.
I do not mourn Charlie Kirk because he is a stranger to me. I feel bad for his family, and it was wrong he was assisinated, but he does not deserve the level of attention he is getting, its all political. He was a darling of the current administration and that is why such a big deal is being made. Nothing about others that were killed or attempted to be killed in the last few months.
We are even at odds with my in-laws who want to force us to take a side politically and wants us to drink the Maga Kool aid that they have. They basically told us that all democrats are evil.
My husband and I refuse to be coerced or forced to play into more division. Our allegiance is the Jesus Christ, who transcends political parties and loves ALL of humanity. Every human being is made in the image of God and is a sinner.
We are living in increasing chaotic and dangerous division, all we have is Jesus Christ to lean on.
Blame it on my own media consumption, or ascribe it to the more moderate evangelical spaces I inhabit, but the role of Charlie Kirk as a Christian apologist was new to me. I had had him in a purely political box. Thus as with all new information, it's going to take some time to digest, to consider and perhaps appreciate. Was he a martyr? Perhaps. Although an equally likely scenario is that that public nature of the murder was itself the justification, the need our society pushes for public performances, that only by performance am I in some sense alive.
This in turn leads to the more regrettable aspect of the essay, ascribing the values to "secular progressivism". It seems far more likely to note that these values are leveraged, accelerated by the current algorithmic culture and in particular its intersection with young men. The repeated horror of young men and guns and a school is too well known, too often driven by the sort of despair fueled by algorithms and the social media desire to be seen. The emergence of the political posture of technology leaders undercuts any narrative that such algorithmic driven narratives possess a particular political color.
It does seem, on the other hand, that given this algorithmic-driven disease, this disconnection and fundamental disembodiment, Christians have a different task in front of them than jumping into this or that familiar political box.
I'm going to go out on a limb as information continues to flood in that Kirk was shot in the throat precisely for having a Christian view of transgenderism.
"In the last year, I have noticed that a core group of my regular readership appears to be more on the NeverTrump side of the political spectrum..."
I would say, good for you and good for us.
I would also take exception to your "experience and straight line criticism". For close to two years now, I have sought six times a week to daily "go where the Bible takes me" as I continue the practice of my late wife and I of reading through the Bible every year.
My experience of having a gay married daughter raising my only two grandchildren certainly impacts my exposition. However, I hope what I write builds on sound exegesis...
Samuel, I’ve only just stumbled across your writing and am glad to have done so. I’m unapologetically a “Never Trumper” whose opposition to transgenderism is on an entirely different level. Neither prominent nor influential , but we’re out here.
I think it poor manners to link one’s own writing on another author’s page without an invitation, but if you take a look at my own Substack you won’t find any hesitation to confront trans ideology head-on.
"Neither rationally nor psychologically is sin to be traced back to a disposition or action which has any reason or right to exist... (Sin) was and is and will eternally remain in conflict with the law of God and with the testimony of our own conscience."
- Herman Bavinck
The Governor of Utah might be a Mormon but in his decency and moderation he speaks for all who want peace to prevail. Thank God for those like him! Many in Britain who love America are praying for the USA today.
Very thoughtful. This is a tighter and more comprehensive framework compared to what I've been bouncing around in my own head.
There are untethered, unwell loners on the right. But I do think it's more of a problem on the left, even if the vast majority of people who vote Democrat are not unwell loners. The church is a large part of the reason for this discrepancy, though the family is another. Both attending a church and building a family are partisan projects like never before.
One thing about godless philosophies is they have a tendency to be unbalanced in a way that promotes monomania. "Who, whom," as the famously monomaniacal Lenin said. By contrast, even the major false religions contain multitudes. I haven't ever put myself in the position of defending Islam, but I can say with confidence that Islam is a lot more than its most strawmanned caricature might suggest. It isn't just a project about destroying the Great Satan, or covering up women, etc. etc. It's a whole-life philosophy that, for most people in most times, means supporting a virtuous life dedicated to family.
I don't think that, for example, "Trans Rights Now" as a life philosophy has this going for it. It offers nothing in support of personal virtue or a balanced life. But it does a LOT to promote monomaniacal obsession.
If you have a family to take care of that you actually live with and would never abandon, you can only be so monomaniacal in pursuit of other things. Of course, this produces a gap in understanding. The childless struggle to understand the impact when we point out Kirk's children. And in turn, when someone comes after a father like that, it comes across as especially personal to the rest of us.
Thank you for this thoughful article. I like thta you point out we are finally seeing the fruit of accepting a liberal (materialistic) epistemology.
I think this essay, and your piece last week, have done more for me in clarifying the "vibe shift" in my own soul more than almost anything else in the last few years. It's an incredibly helpful framework, and your moral clarity in a confusing time is very helpful. Thank you.
Well written, brother. Thank you for putting this analysis out there.
So good! Your point about “speaking in a straight line” is such a good one!