Almost immediately in the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there have been religious and spiritual types calling on their followers and fellow ‘believers’ to offer ‘grace’ and ‘forgiveness’, to pray for those who have committed acts of evil; to offer these, they say, just as Jesus Christ would do the same — as if any fallible human being possesses the slightest idea of what the Omniscient thinks or knows, as if any mere mortal is remotely capable of imitating the Omnipotent in the betrayal of human emotions or visceral instincts or Earthy concepts of justice, and despite the fact that Judgment on High is separate from Justice on Earth.
Scripture’s warnings about judgment are not a call to moral passivity. They are a warning against hypocrisy, not against clarity or conviction. Human beings do judge, must judge, and are right to judge; not out of divine pretense, but out of necessity — for protection, for justice, for truth. Judgment on High may belong to God alone, but judgment on Earth is a human obligation. It isn’t optional. Indeed, sometimes it is harsh and uncompromising, but it’s how individuals and societies identify threats, respond to evil, preserve justice, and protect the innocent. To withhold judgment in the face of violence or evil is not virtue — it’s abdication. It’s moral anesthesia masquerading as humility.
As for all of the quasi-religious talk pushing for grace, prayer, and premature absolution, it is complete and utter nonsense — cheap, performative, and premature.
Even worse than nonsense, it is dangerous.
This is just the kind of nonsense that spreads like a disease through a community of softhearted people and allows evil to prevail on planet Earth; the kind of thinking that would also insist that a society of lawful theft could still be productive. This kind of thinking is high-minded poetry, not a plan for any society which, in the real world, depends on the assurances of defense as well as the exertions (not just talk and prayers) of principled and honorable men.
It is especially reckless where a false preacher stands in the way of honorable men and Earthly justice, where he presents parables, ideas and recommendations that discount the threat of evildoers, whose consciences permit them to commit evil and who lick their chops where they find prey eager to forgive.
In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there are people who want to believe that they know how Charlie would’ve wanted us to respond. There are those who have used artificial intelligence to generate advice along these lines. There are those armed with sentiments worthy of Hallmark cards who want to instruct the masses on what “should” or “shouldn’t” be done, how we “should” react or “shouldn’t” react, why we “should” “forgive” and that we “should” just take them at their word because they say so.
Don’t think for a second that these kinds of messages are anything but a distraction. Don’t think for a moment that these kinds of messages, thick with rhetoric and hollow words, are helping to solve any of the problems that we are facing.
The truth is that the constant barrage of news, the endless content and video coverage, is itself a distraction, but the content that targets the audiences’ consciences and sensibilities is among the most insidious; and the content that attempts to soften the blow, to assuage the anger, or to criticize our instincts, serves not just to stall society in the mobilization of its defenses but to ultimately condemn it to destruction. The worst of this kind is that which claims to have the support of the Holy or the Divine; an impregnable defense for the simpletons and the charlatans who likely do not know how much harm they are actually causing. Or maybe they do.
Whatever the motive, it’s the results that count, and the practical effect of such nonsense as this is a weakening of society, a disarming of the defenses already erected and those that would have been built. In many cases, it’s not just a matter of defenses being compromised but doors foolishly left open, and, for all intents and purposes, invitations being sent out to the wrong people — to put it delicately.
Indeed, if we are so weak as to seek to forgive a ruthless assassin — an unrepentant assassin who is reportedly not cooperating with police, who has neither offered apologies nor sought forgiveness, and who is (let’s be honest) highly unlikely to be sincere when or if he ever does — within the first week after the act, then we are condemning ourselves and, what’s worse, our children to a future of blight where violent evildoers dominate the essential aspects of social life.
This weakness which today passes as Christianity stands in the way of real progress.
Modern Christians are receptive to this message because, in their limited interpretation, it frees them from having to make any sacrifices, endure any hardships, or make any difficult decisions that might cost them financially, materially, or a night’s sleep. They are receptive to this because they are more interested in happiness than in carrying the Cross, or, for that matter, any burden that might last too long.
This isn’t strength. This isn’t insightful. This is weakness, and this is how modern Christians merely get in the way of people who are prepared to actually get things done, motivate others to do the same, and inspire real change on this mortal coil.
Don’t forget: while we are promised eternal life, on Earth we as parents have the responsibility to create and leave to our children better prospects, a better place, and with that a better society. The constant messaging around unsolicited “forgiveness” and the pseudo-intellectual, or pseudo-spiritual, ramblings presuming to know what Charlie would have wanted, which really nobody can prove, and about the sort of judgment that might be in store for the assassin, which is far beyond the limits of human understanding, is not just impractical but completely dishonest.
Righteous people don’t just extend their forgiveness; they don’t simply sit on their hands and talk themselves into passive acceptance, excusing themselves on the basis of convenient interpretations of scripture.
In one case, the question is raised, “I wonder if Stephen was the first to greet Paul in heaven?” Of course, this question is (and can only be) posed rhetorically, as there is no evidence to suggest that he was, nor any legitimate reason to believe that he should have been.
More importantly in this case, Charlie’s assassin bears virtually no resemblance to Paul, any more than any other criminal resembles him; given that — again — we are not even a week removed from the day of the assassination, so it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise to know that the assassin hasn’t changed all that much spiritually or intellectually since he was arrested a few days ago.
As for Paul, he may have approved of Stephen’s execution and the persecution of Christians, but, importantly, he later underwent a dramatic transformation, converting to Christianity and becoming a leading apostle.
Charlie’s assassin, on the other hand, is not Paul, and we do ourselves no favors by assuming that the world’s criminals are capable of this kind of change; a truly radical kind of change which is simply far too uncommon to even justify contemplating the possibility for Charlie Kirk’s assassin — an assassin who, by all appearances, has the profile of somebody basically as far away from Christian teachings as humanly possible.
Ultimately, the modern Christian needs to take hold of his Bible and remember that it serves not to prioritize happiness, passivity, or acceptance, but to establish hard rules and responsibilities, to articulate the suffering and the hardships, and often the brutality and the hard-fought battles, that come with a life in pursuit of the eternal and the righteous.
The glory of God is not, in this case, found in “victims embracing their killers as brothers” — which, in the here and now, represents sanctimony more than Scripture — but in the recognition that there is a time to kill, a time for mercy, and a time for healing; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
So, as Scripture instructs us that there is a time for war, we must not pretend that those decisions will make themselves. Someone — the righteous — is responsible for discerning when the time has come, and it is incumbent upon the righteous to take action before it’s too late, or to at least recognize when they are already on the defensive.
While there is doubtless basis in Scripture for prayers with hopes that even our adversaries will be ‘saved’, and there is doubtless the Commandment that believers ‘love thy enemy’, neither calls for the irresponsible or the naive; neither calls for giving aid or comfort to the enemy in the midst of war. Neither of these notions implies that a mother must open her door to a stranger, let alone a known evildoer, to place her own children at risk. Neither of these notions suggests that any tribe or society must welcome any and all, regardless of sin, let alone any of those who’ve committed murder.
On the contrary, we as parents, and as the wise and righteous custodians of our own communities, are called to drive out the evildoers, the scoffers and the self-condemned who decline instruction, resist responsibility, and reject correction; who prove to us not only by their words but by their actions just what little value they place on life, and what little value they place in wisdom.
Let us not forgive them too hastily, as forgiveness shall not short-circuit justice; and let us refrain from suggesting to evildoers that our loving and forgiving nature is a sign of weakness.
This is precisely the risk so often run by simpletons and charlatans in possession of Scripture.
As it is written, “Like a thorn that goes up into the hand of a drunkard is a proverb in the mouth of fools.”
In other words, Wisdom in the hands of fools is ineffective, hypocritical, and yes, dangerous. Let not our faith and goodwill take part in our own ruin. Let us think and lead with our heads, let us be guided by the Word, and let us not be so soft of heart that we squander the blessings of life that are ours and in our hands; and let us reject false preachers who cite Scripture to thwart good instincts, just when the time has come for the wise to take action.
False preachers and their followers are, in these times, guilty of weakening the defenses; they are the ones who allowed the Trojan Horse to breach the walls, only to permit the infiltration and destruction of Troy. They are those within the walls who dampened the suspicions and fears of their fellow man, whereby, through pride and superstition, unwittingly — and against better judgment — they essentially condemned the men, women, and children to death or slavery. That is the fate of the civilization rejoicing in the words and recommendations of unwise counsel.
Comments
Post a Comment