Earlier this week, a man by the name of Charlie Kirk was killed by a single gunshot during one of his infamous speaking events at a university in Utah. Online discourse reacting to the incident has been profuse, diverse, and passionate.
One of the final courses I took in my Master’s of Theological Studies was Peace Church Theology. As both a martial artist and a theologian, the intersection of faith and violence has been a source of long pondering. As such, I would like to dialogue with some of the responses I’ve seen to the shooting and share some of my own perspective on the matter.
Context
Charlie Kirk was a rising star in the right-wing US political and Christian communities. Kirk was in his early thirties and had risen to prominence over the past 10 years or so by hosting several events that ostensibly encouraged dialogue. Clips of Kirk’s events on university and college campuses were ubiquitous online. They were apparently open invitations to ask him questions and debate with him in public, and often led to passionate exchanges, both in agreement and disagreement. Kirk’s events have been credited with contributing to the re-election of Trump as POTUS in the 2024 election appealing, as they did, to the millennial and Gen Z demographics.
Kirk’s talking points tended to be more extreme than many. He is on-record as having spoken in support of the State of Israel though also expressing anti-Jewish perspectives. He was adamantly against abortion, resisting exceptions even in the case of rape (though having limited exceptions if the life of the mother was in danger). He was adamantly against same-sex marriage and insisted on a gender binary. He repeatedly resisted efforts to increase gun control, and was on record speaking in defense of white supremacy.
Kirk was also married with two children at the time of his death.
Responses to Kirk’s Killing
Having established something in the way of context, I will now share some of the responses I’ve seen to the shooting in online discourse as well as some brief commentary on each.
Comparisons of Violence
(Shooting of Kirk vs. genocide in Gaza, Ukraine war, school shootings, etc.)
I have seen concerns expressed over how much attention is being paid to the shooting of Kirk as opposed to the genocide in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, and school shootings. These are valid concerns. However, there a few things that may be helpful to keep in mind about this apparent discrepancy. Firstly, the Kirk shooting is domestic for many in the USA and closer to home for many in Canada than either the genocide in Gaza or the war in Ukraine. This proximity brings a greater sense of immediacy and a sense of some control over what can be done about it that is lacking in conflicts that take place overseas. Secondly, the Kirk shooting is a one-time incident. The overseas conflicts, and even mass shootings in the USA more broadly, are ongoing crises. It is far easier for many to bring emotional and cognitive resources to bear on a one-time incident than it is to sustain such resources on long-lasting, ongoing crises.
Finally, on a very basic level, I am wary about comparing different types of violence and saying that one is more worth of attention and comment than other; or conversely, that just because one has been relatively silent on one type of violence they lose the right to comment on the other. Rather, I suggest that most types of violence are interrelated and we should welcome any engagement that can reduce any instance of violence as it contributes to the cause of reducing violence overall.
Defenses of Kirk
(Defender of speech husband and father, etc.)
In the wake of Kirk’s deaths, representatives from across the political spectrum characterized Kirk as a representative of democracy since his events encouraged dialogue and even disagreement. Such characterizations are inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst. Part of Kirk’s fame emerged out of events he held on college and university campuses. In the clips which often circulated online of these debates, the atmosphere was not one of a debate or dialogue between peers. Rather, it seemed to akin to seeking an audience with a traveling leader who then demonstrated his superiority by verbally denominating the discourse. The events Kirk hosted were marked by dynamics of power, privilege and domination that are hostile to the free exchange of ideas that democracy claims to value. Characterizations of Kirk’s events as emblematic of democratic ideals miss these dynamics, and ignore the actuality of verbal violence that are ubiquitous in such forums.
Another common theme I’ve seen is the focus on Kirk as a husband and father. This is best understood as a thought-terminating cliche. History is replete with examples of people with loving partners and children who were absolutely worthy of condemnation in several other aspects of their lives. While it is perfectly okay to sympathize and even empathize with Kirk’s wife and children, the fact that he was a husband and father does not negate the validity of any criticisms directed at Kirk. Kirk’s perspectives were harmful to many other people who loved and were loved too-many of whom have considerably less power and privilege than Kirk did.
Kirk probably did do some good things and was probably good to do some people; he definitely did plenty of bad things and was bad to many people. This is a testament to the fact that he was human-we human beings are a mixture of good and bad, harm and help. That mixture does not negate the need to be aware of, criticize, and even condemn the bad and harm in ourselves and others.
Media Criticisms
(Divisive rhetoric, violent images, etc.)
One of the calls which has emerged in the wake of this is to reduce divisive rhetoric across the political spectrum. This is often paired with accusations of how various forms of media contribute to division. These calls are valid in some ways but also wrapped up with some dangerous misconceptions and inaccurate characterizations.
Firstly, various forms of media do indeed contribute to higher degrees of division and polarization. While there was once hope that open information would be the cure to all societal ills, more recent psychological and sociological study has called attention to the various ways in which this is unlikely to be effective. There are numerous psychological biases that make factual information unpersuasive on its own, and others which predispose us to be more aware of information that is negative or emotionally provocative. Unfortunately, media distributors have knowingly or unknowingly, relied on these biases to gather attention and make money. That said, media creation is also open to more diverse voices than it once was and there are now more diverse perspectives readily accessible alongside dominant narratives. So media itself cannot be dismissed as wholly bad.
The question of whether divisive rhetoric is increasing is difficult to determine. Language used to condemn, ridicule, or mischaracterize people with different opponents and perspectives is millennia old. The Hebrew Scriptures contain origin stories which condemn and ridicule their contemporary enemies; ongoing narratives present their enemies and adversaries as bumbling fools or heinous monsters; The Christian New Testament contains strong rhetorical statements and narratives against other first-century Jewish groups such as the Pharisees while reducing statements and narratives against the Roman Empire to subtle jabs and mockery. These various types of rhetorical tools and tricks to undermine one’s adversaries have continued through the millennia. Any suggestion of an increase in divisive rhetoric is likely coloured by nostalgic gloss than an accurate representation of the actual rate of occurrence.
Concerns over violent images is a far trickier concept. It is worth reflecting however, that seeing instances of violence is not new. Growing up in cottage country, I saw dead wildlife carcasses regularly during walks in the forest; for most of our history, we have more likely than not seen death and violence up close and personal. The intermediary of a screen is a more recent development. Seeing violence, whether in-person or through a screen, does seem to leave a mark on our psyche; however, this is likely also not a new problem and not seeing any death, violence, or suffering is likely impossible this side of history. Developing media literacy and skills to cope with disturbing images is probably more helpful than striving never to see such images again. By all means, we should still try to regulate media environments-but doing so with a more nuanced understanding and awareness of the problems we are facing is crucial to success.
Kirk and Empathy
(Kirk didn’t give empathy to others and doesn’t deserve it; Kirk was a child of God and deserves empathy)
Since Kirk is on record as speaking against the very concept of empathy, disagreement over the empathy he is owed is rampant. I don’t have much to say on this-I don’t think we can force empathy for anyone on anyone else. What I will offer is that whatever Kirk’s stance on empathy, we each must examine our own conscience and principles for what empathy a person is owed as a human being.
Acceptable types of violence
(political violence is never acceptable, violence is the only language people like Kirk understand, etc.
The shooting of Kirk has led to a predictable discourse on what types of violence are acceptable when engaging with those who advocate for violence on others. This is not a new quandary by any means. Within Christian tradition, such questioning goes back to the first century; the Hebrew Scriptures preserve disagreements over such matters going back millennia further.
While it is unlikely we will resolve these issues anymore now than we have over the past couple of thousand years, it is helpful to remember that violence is not limited to the physical. Verbal and emotional violence are damaging in and of themselves. Additionally, the very divide between different categories of violence is artificial and typical of Western dualism – a plentitude of research has documented how the words we say have emotional effects that result in physical harm to the body through a variety of processes. The term “political violence” signals, in part, a question around who has the legitimate right to violence. In modern Western democracies, the answer is largely that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, which it enacts through the use of law enforcement and the judicial-penal system. There have are numerous other historical answers to that question, and plenty of problems with the current dominant answer, but we should at least be clear on the question we’re raising if we wish to come to a consensus on such matters.
Acceptable responses to violence
(Now is the time for unity, you can’t comment on violence if you’ve never faced it yourself, etc. )
As is often the case with such high-profile instances of violence, the gatekeeping of responses to violence very quickly emerge. Companies and organizations issue guidelines on acceptable responses, and leading figures in public discourse call for unity, or at least reduced division. Others quickly retort that those who are protected from violence have no right to comment on it.
Regarding calls for unity and reduced hostile discourse, there a few different underlying motivations for making those calls. Some are performative calls, meant to check a response off the list of expected responses. Others are responsive to a discomfort, reflecting a belief that if we don’t talk about areas of disagreement we will all just get along. None of these motivations are particularly compelling. Modelling how to disagree well is both more helpful in short-term reaction and in long-term resolutions.
Regarding the relative exposure to violence, I sympathize with the impulse. I suggest, however, that no one fully escapes exposure to violence. There are types of violence which one make be more exposed to than others but again, caution around a hierarchy of violence is warranted. Exposure to violence is, at present, part and parcel of the human experience. Commenting on and reacting to violence is to be expected of every human being.
It is worth noting as well, that some people who we either know or can reasonably assume were exposed to high incidences of violence were often adamant in calling for a mitigation or complete aversion to violence. Such figures include Jesus of Nazareth and many within the early Christian movement; the various Christian denominations that fall under the umbrella of Anabaptism; the Taoist perspectives preserved in the Tao Te Ching (which emerged out of the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods); Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and countless others. Exposure to violence is thus just as likely to lead to a call for mitigation of, or aversion to, violence as it is to result in calls for answering violence with violence. This makes exposure to violence an unhelpful criteria in determining who has the right to weigh in responses to violence.
Closing Thoughts
Kirk’s death, for better or worse, has renewed discourse, reactions, and talking points that ultimately wrestle with questions of violence and justice that stretch back decades, centuries and millennia. These are questions that cut to the heart of what it means to be human and what is owed to our fellow human beings.
I will not assume to be able to resolve such questions. What I have striven to do in this post is to offer some commentary some of the common reactions I’ve seen to this particular incident and to contextualize them.
To close, I will offer some avenues for exploration that may be helpful as you examine your own principles and consciences on these matters:
-Who has the right to determine the people who can respond to instances of violence?
-Who has the right to determine what forms of violence are acceptable and what the acceptable responses to violence are?
-Why might responses to instances of violence differ?
-How do we cultivate media literacy on issues of violence?
-How do we cultivate skills to address and engage with depictions and descriptions of violence?
-What have human beings had to say about violence in the past? Is there anything helpful we can look to or draw upon from our religious/cultural traditions and perspectives?
Finally, I wish to offer my own call. As we engage with questions of violence and justice, may we do so humbly and boldly. Humbly, as we acknowledge these questions are long-standing and cut to the heart of the human experience. Boldy, as we acknowledge that violence against one affects all, that violence has out-sized impacts, and that a new way of relating to each other is crucial if we are to address many of the other complex crises which affect us on a local, national, and global scale.
The Dreamers' Corner 